No right to resist unlawful police entry:

[AZGrizFan]

Yes. I know you'd rather whine about it.

So, if you agree with me why don't YOU help do something about it?

[CID1990]

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences. In both cases there were women being assaulted and the officers made entry. In one case it was a rape in progress. In the other the girl was being pistol whipped by her boyfriend.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

Cid, I fully get the Exigent Circumstances thing...

But if we go back to the opening post, and look at the article cited, we're not talking exigent circumstances here IMHO...but a bad cop getting protection of the court over a citizens rights...

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

This is a rouge court (modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence??? That's code for Na Na, I got the robe and you have to do what I say...screw the Constitution)

There have been home invasions where the bad guys pretend to be police officers...what this court is saying is, lie down and take it...don't defend yourself if someone utters the magic word POLICE...be it the real deal or a bad guy...

I plan to defend my house if someone comes busting through the door...

No, I agree that exigent circumstances do not apply in this specific case. I was responding to SK's willful ignorance.

[CID1990]

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences. In both cases there were women being assaulted and the officers made entry. In one case it was a rape in progress. In the other the girl was being pistol whipped by her boyfriend.

However, in your world, you would have the police wait for the warrant, THEN enter the house and rope off the crime scene and wait for the coroner.

Cid, I fully get the Exigent Circumstances thing...

But if we go back to the opening post, and look at the article cited, we're not talking exigent circumstances here IMHO...but a bad cop getting protection of the court over a citizens rights...

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

This is a rouge court (modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence??? That's code for Na Na, I got the robe and you have to do what I say...screw the Constitution)

There have been home invasions where the bad guys pretend to be police officers...what this court is saying is, lie down and take it...don't defend yourself if someone utters the magic word POLICE...be it the real deal or a bad guy...

I plan to defend my house if someone comes busting through the door...

That's correct, and that is also why prevailing case law makes it very clear that on any police detention or search the burden is on the police to make it very clear that they are police, i.e: clearly marked uniforms, loud announcements, the whole nine yards. Can bad guys do that too? Of course they can. But I know of a number of cases in Charleston where charges of resisting and assault on police were dropped because the detainee rightly and convincingly argued that he did not know the undercover police officer was not just trying to rob him. Those kinds of cases were prevalent about 10-15 years ago, and most police agencies have learned their lesson on that score. CPD has a policy that if an undercover officer wants to stop someone, he needs to get on the horn and call a uniform over.

The real crux of the problem here is that it has always been unwritten knowledge that you have the right to resist unlawful searches and seizures. However, resistance to a dynamic police entry is generally not advisable, given the fact that the police are generally well armed, (and their guns are already out, as opposed to under the pillow or in the bedside table). The money from the lawsuit isn't going to do me any good. I think that if the police come kicking my door down I am going to comply with their orders and then sue the sh!t out of them (since they are OBVIOUSLY at the wrong house). I'll be alive to enjoy the money.

I understand the thinking in the Indiana case (in much the same way I understand SK's ignorance), but I do think it is ill-informed (and will probably not stand up under appeal).

[Skjellyfetti]

SK, you need to check into the real world. Exigent circumstances have a place.

I can name you specific instances where officer in my squad thwarted violent crimes using the exigent circumstances clause to enter residences.

Cid, I can name you specific instances where cops committed violent crimes entering residences.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Cid, I can name you specific instances where cops committed violent crimes entering residences.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23940" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said, search the internet and you'll find instances like this. You can also find instances of gay jilted lovers killing each other. Does that mean that gay domestic violence is typical of gays?

I do not defend these guys, but you might want to wait until all the facts come out on this one.

Maybe you should try it this way:

We'll pick a random city, say, Boone, NC. Find me all the instances where the Boone police have done things like this. If you search long enough, you can find examples of all kinds of police misconduct.

By the way, have you considered signing up for a ride-along program?