It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:19 PM
Wow this is shocking. What happened to the fourth amendment? Few 4th of July's agothree cops showed up at our house and claimed we were shooting off fireworks and tried to force their way into our house to search for the "contraband". I slammed the door on one guy's foot and locked it. They eventually went away after searching my backyard and found a bottlerocket. Now this of course could have come from anywhere but was to them the key piece of evidence. They wrote me a ticket and charged me with interfering with a police investigation or whatever the hell it was which was dropped. I contacted some folks about suing for violating my rights and after talking to em and seeing the red tape to wade through and what it would end up costing it's just not worth it. Now these clowns can enter your home illegally? WTF are these judges thinking. I wake up in the middle of the night and i hear somebody coming up the stairs they eat lead.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

Not sure of Indiana's laws, but is there a law in place that makes filming LEO's illegal in Indiana? If so, then to be able to prove that there is wrongdoing on the LEO's part would be next to impossible. Their words hold more water than the citizens. Without proof, it is pointless to even pursue legal action.

Very good point.

Well 3 states already made it illegal... Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland... and 9 others, last I heard, about a year ago, were trying to make it illegal.

So 12/50... one in 4 chances that Indiana is indeed trying to pass such a law.

And the most ``important`` thing about this court ruling is the JURISPRUDENCE it will set for other states to do the same ruling.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:20 PM
The tenants of Fascism are alive and thriving in the US of A!

As an outsider looking in (Canadian) it is really sad to see what has happened to the US in the last10 years. The blatant crimes against the citizens of the US is staggering and things are not much better and getting worse in Canada.

Global fascism is making a powerful move to create police states and force brutality back on the people. They will force a revolution as we will dispare not to revolt!

Makes me wonder how many police, law enforcement, security and military are aware they are feeding a fascist and dangerous movement that mirror's Hitler's Nazi movement from the 1930's. Did we not learn anything from history?

Freedom must be defended.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:21 PM
i would honestly be shocked if anyone had time to react. the way those paramilitary goons go about their infiltration is top notch unfortunately.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by babybunnies

Pig tanks are only tanks outside the military, .30-06 AP should punch right through those thin skinned turds.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by babybunnies

Yes, Bush put this ball rolling when he signed the freedom stripping Patriot Act and further pushed that envelope with his strong arming of telecoms and ISPs for personal data.

Obama doubled down the bet, with expanding the scope of DHS, putting a ton of dough in to "cyber security", continuing to pressure tech firms and the rest of it.

With all of this there is absolutely no transparency. We have no idea what the government is doing with respect to the violation of our privacy and hence rights.

Personal liberty and privacy are attributes of an era long since passed.

While you have no real defense, the best offensive strategy is to record absolutely every encounter with LE in both video and audio. At least at this point there are no laws against recording what happens on your front porch or within your own home. At least for now

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:23 PM
there comes a time when enough is enough non?

I mean that second amendment is there to stop these pigs form this kind of bs....

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by rcanem
It is the judges duty to uphold the law, not remake it in thier own image. this is complete and utter BS. I agree these judges should be impeached and thier license to practice law revoked!

And be put against the wall for high treason. They already proven they are traitors with this ruling.

We can't be all nice and friendly with traitors otherwise treason is like lying about the weather.

When you're a judge, you got great power, you've got great responsibilities and when you screw it up, you get greater punishment.

This ruling will cause :

More dead cops.
More dead innocents.

And the judges will still be seating in their multi-million houses, their BMW of the year, doing at least 2 trips a year in the Caribbeans at their beach house drinking 1000$ a bottle cognac while smoking cuban cigars while those innocents die.

What a beautiful world we live in!
edit on 13-5-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by EssenceOfSilence
This amounts to legislating from the bench in my opinion. They effectively repealed the 4th amendment.

Here is a related thread on the same topic.

The PATRIOT act already repealed the 4th ammendment, the bench had nothing to do with it.

Yes, but the patriot act could still be overturned by the court if ever challenged. (It may have been challenged - I will do a search). This ruling would have to be overturned by a higher court. If not, then it would take both legislative and executive action to undo it.

Thanks for the reply.
edit on 13-5-2011 by EssenceOfSilence because: Added comment

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:42 PM
I am a single female who has been stalked in the past and has put a man in prison for beating me nearly to death. ANYONE who enters my home without my invitation, well, God rest their soul.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:43 PM
What is the ultimate reason police use for busting-in without warrant? Is it Drug Prohibition? That is more and more a tool to separate you from any rights you have left.

I believe there is cause and reason to enter a home if there are screams of violence, but I don't believe that is the reason home are being entered at the rate they are. You have no Rights remaining, all in the name of Prohibition.

Or is there some other larger compelling reason they do this? Correct me if I am wrong.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by pityocamptes
Then most here will probably be interested in a anti-home entry system (relatively cheap) that is guarenteed to stop ANY door breech. Will offer them for sale here in a few weeks. Granted it won't stop anyone from cutting a hole in the side of your house...

How about the FBI breaking in your front door with a tank? Be careful what you claim - ANY door breach? Good luck with that.

We stand by ANY STANDARD DOOR breach. They don't use tanks to run THROUGH your house, not after Waco...

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
What is the ultimate reason police use for busting-in without warrant? Is it Drug Prohibition? That is more and more a tool to separate you from any rights you have left.

I believe there is cause and reason to enter a home if there are screams of violence, but I don't believe that is the reason home are being entered at the rate they are. You have no Rights remaining, all in the name of Prohibition.

Or is there some other larger compelling reason they do this? Correct me if I am wrong.

I believe now they have to have consent to search ones home. Probable cause like smelling weed at the door is not bounds to enter one's home, well until now in Indiana. Hell they don't even need probable cause now. They can just walk in and say hey turn on the ballgame and tell me what the score is then watch a few minutes and leave if they want to.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:49 PM
I think they are getting scared! lol. Good, they should be. Expect more of this to turn up. When we rise against evil, dont expect evil to go down without a fight either. Now is not the time for creating an army, but let it be known that we will stand up for librty and freedom if need be.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:06 PM
when will yall learn that people do these things... not words. no words can justify what we already know. it was all put into word form as a declaration of what is true... not as a mechanism of enforcement!

you give power to these judges by acting like this decision changed anything!

I say none in indiana should allow officers in ever. I say that all should tell the american kgb to go home and find a hobby instead of acting out their personal grudges and greeds.

so stop complaining that civil war is afoot and instead be prepared to act when it is your time....
which it inevitably shall be!

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:09 PM
Note: Reposted this from my reply in same topic, different forum

First here is a link to the Court's opinion for those interested going to the source and not wholly trusting news outlets for their reporting.


To give the whole picture and the article does a fairly decent job is Mr. Barnes was contesting that his battery conviction from the connected trial case should not be able to hold legal grounds because the jury was not advised on the defendants "right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers".

Following a 'domestic depute" call, Officer Reed was the first to respond. Upon arriving on the scene, he found Mr. Barnes outside of his apartment carrying a bag. Obviously at this point, being in an argument with his wife Mary, Mr. Barnes was probably heated.

The court shows that Mr. Barnes became agitated and was yelling at the officer even after he was informed that he could be arrested for "disorderly conduct". That of course is a discussion for another time, but the officer was apparently trying to gain control of the situation. There was a point that Mr. Barnes informed the officer he was no longer needed, but in my opinion, Mr. Barnes was not the person who called 9-11 and therefore couldn't really make that claim.

Following the confrontation outside, Mary came out and "threw a black duffle bag in Barnes‘s direction" and told him to "take the rest of his stuff". She returned to the apartment, but she also invited her husband back into the apartment by telling him to get the rest of his stuff.

This is when the battery occurred. After reentering his apartment, the officers tried to follow in and "investigate". Mr. Barnes told them that they were not allowed and blocked the door way. The court shows Mary gave no explicit invitation for the officers to enter, but reportedly said "don‘t do this" and "just let them in."

Than, Officer Reed forced his way into the apartment and Mr. Barnes pushed Officer Reed against the wall. Mr. Barnes was taken down by a choker hold and taser.

During his trial, Mr. Barnes attempted to instruct the jury that a citizen has a reasonable right to resist unlawful entry, but was overruled by the sitting judge and the jury was instructed that there was none. Mr. Barnes was found guilty of his crimes.


So there is whole context of the situation. Now, the specifics of the Indiana Supreme Court opinion.

What is amazing is giving the history of the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry and arrest, the Indiana Supreme Court cites two United States Supreme Court cases that upheld that very right. Bad Elk v United States (1900) and United States v Di Re (1948).

Each respectively upheld the common-law practice that "If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest" and "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases".

The Court did offer counter-arguments to these two cases involving our highest court in the form of lower court rulings and legal scholarly writings. The court also referred to outside states that have 'abolished the right' because of modern thinking that the expectation of individual liberty no longer outweighs public safety. (Note: This is not legal opinion but rather from a work of the scholars Hemmens & Levin)

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Those are the exact words of opinion from the Court. For context, even though I know most of you here know the Fourth Amendment, it reads"

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where the argument can play out, and the Court did not address is what is "unreasonable searches and seizures". This of course, I would hope Mr. Barnes would escalate to the highest court and have the Supreme Court weigh in on. Not merely for his arguments, but because of the Indiana Supreme Court ruling effectively abolishing a common-law right from the bench without weighing the possible implications.

The rest of the opinion, which I implore you all to read goes on to detail the summary of evidence. I think Mr. Barnes should up channel this to the Supreme Court of the United States because of the initial charge; Battery of an Officer. There the court ruled that Mr. Barnes, who does not deny shoving the officer into the wall, was not in his right to be secure in his personal property and effects.

The dissenting views would have still held Mr. Barnes I believe on his charges, but their views were in protection of the wholesale destruction of the common-law practice that Indiana was still using. The best dissension of the opinion I believe is the following:

But the common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
and goes on to say:

In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.

In Payton v New York, the Supreme Court held that "The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest."

Yet Indiana decided to completely destroy the common-law practice, rather than apply a narrow ruling and opinion on the matter at hand and in turn, eroded the citizen's rights of Indiana in regards to the Fourth Amendment.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:11 PM
So A cop can be all like "Open the door, I'm coming in there to rape you" - and you can't resist...., we're all potentially quite screwed.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:27 PM
I have never been a big fan of Law Enforcement.
With that said, This former Sheriff from Graham County, Arizona is exactly the kind of Sheriff EVERY County in the US needs.
The Office of Sheriff, an elected official, is one that holds so much authority, that it is important to elect one that thinks the way this guy does:
Clip is from his interview with Judge Napolitano.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Elostone because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So A cop can be all like "Open the door, I'm coming in there to rape you" - and you can't resist...., we're all potentially quite screwed.

Thats a bit extreme and a bit off the point.

Here, the person would be in all rights to resist since the threat upon their life has been made by the officer at hand. Of course, with this ruling, it shows the Indiana Supreme Court is willing to use broad strokes to apply law. You might actually be right.

A better example would be the following:
When I was 6 years old, I would walk home from school and be home alone for about an hour before my dad came home. Well, as a 6 year old that learned about the importance of 9-11 at school and at home, I decided to test it out!

I called 9-11 and immediately hung up when the operator answered. Of course, they called back and I answered and hung up. This of course caused a response to the house. My dad shows up and I am a bit freaked out. Next thing, there is a knock on the door. Two uniformed officers explain to my father that they received a 9-11 call from this residence.

My father explained that he did not make the call and of course quickly looked at me. The officers asked my dad if they can look inside and my father explained to them that the call was made by me, his 6 year old son and that there is no need to come inside. The officer respected that and asked then if it was okay to look around the property perimeter to ensure everything was okay. My dad gave them permission.

Now, under this ruling and if we lived in Indiana, the police could demand to enter the house even if not expressly given consent under the guise of "reasonable public safety". My dad would not be able to protect his home and would not be able to resist without fear of prosecution. The Fourth Amendment took a damn big hit in Indiana because of this ruling.

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:35 PM
we've seen iraqi insurgents, terrorists, libyan rebels...

American patriots are a whole different ballgame. i'd imagine a little more professional as well. trained and on the right side. if we keep heading down this road, it will be INEVITABLE. you will have to fight.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in