Hoosier Supremes Hose Fourth Amendment
Alternate header: Your home is no longer your castle. At least not in Indiana, according to a ruling last week from that state’s Supreme Court. This from the NWI Times:
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.
“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.”
The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
…
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”
Um, yes, in spades. How exactly is “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home” against “public policy” and “incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence”?
In case anybody forgot, which apparently the ISC majority did, here’s little refresher course on what until recently I was thick enough to think was “public policy” of the highest order:
“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.”
So according to the Indiana Supreme Court’s majority opinion, you have Fourth Amendment rights, but only if you seek them in court after they’ve already been violated and, in the case at hand, you’ve been zapped by a stun gun.
Thoughts?
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=6242
