The furor isn't dying down over the Indiana Supreme Court's 3-2 ruling that Hoosiers don't have the right to resist if police officers illegally enter their homes. I can't remember the last time a court ruling in Indiana was so quickly and so roundly condemned. The consensus seems to be that the court pretty much gutted the Fourth Amendment, though not everyone puts it quite that strongly. It's fair to say the criticism is coming from across the political spectrum -- this is our editorial, and here The Journal Gazette weighs in. Even a lot of police are uncomfortable:
Under the law people are not able to resist whenever police enter their home, even if it's illegally.
However, the Terre Haute Chief of Police, John Plasse is concerned with the ruling.
"To have like a blank check type thing, no I don't agree with that. I believe that's probably going to be challenged really soon," Plasse said.
He feels it actually could give police too much power. For that reason, he says he understands the public's concern.
The ruling is being cited by some -- especially in conservative Republican ranks -- as evidence that Gov. Mitch Daniels isn't fit for the presidency because he appointed the justice who wrote the majority opinion (see here and here, and this is a defense from Daniels' General Counsel).
Whoda thunk Indiana would be the place where the "Your home is your castle" concept crumbled?
Comments
When law enforcement makes a mistake, the Indiana Supreme court says the remedy is the court. The problem with this is that the court relies on what law enforcement new at the time of the infraction. If it is probable that the law enforcement did not know what they were doing was wrong, then it is extremely difficult to get relief from the court.
The burden of proof shifts from law enforcement to the private citizen, clearly contrary to the 4th Amendment. In addition, many times law enforcement does not identify themselves. They rely on a uniform or even less visible a badge attached to pants covered by clothing. How many different law enforcement uniforms are there in Indiana? How different are they from Security guard uniforms?
I believe this ruling will be heard by the US Supreme Court at some time in the future.
What about the law that allows you to defend yourself in your home using deadly force. I think this ruling is terrible.
There was a case in Indianapolis, I think it was in the mid-1980s, where a neighbor called the cops on a fellow over a barking dog.
The cop that arrived was pretty belligerent, and the school teacher decided things were going from bad to worse. "Am I under arrest?", he asked. The cop said no, he wasn't. "In that case," he said, "I'm through talking to you." He turned around and went back into the house.
Steam was blowing out of the cop's ears, and the homeowner wouldn't allow the cop into the house. The cop called for reinforcements, and they ended up breaking down the door and forcing their way into the guy's house. A cop was struck with a bullet and died.
I wouldn't swear to it, but I seem to recall that the bullet was from the teacher's gun, and that the bullet entered the cop's back, but at the time of the shooting, there were about 15 or 20 people in the guy's kitchen, and the guy was being jostled around pretty roughly.
They ended up convicting the guy. Not sure what happened to the dog. It turns out the guy was a really popular teacher at one of the schools there, and students were organizing all sorts of rallies, and people were upset over the law asserting a right to defend your home and your property. I don't know how it ended up.
Parts of Indianapolis were pretty dark at the time, but this happened in what was a fairly white neighborhood. I can't remember exactly where, but I'm thinking it was near Nora or near College Avenue, something like that, a fairly upscale, fairly quiet, white family neighborhood on the central north side.
"If it is probable that the law enforcement did not know what they were doing was wrong, then it is extremely difficult to get relief from the court." Shame that ignorance of the law is an excuse ONLY for those whose occupation requires them NOT to be ignorant of the law.