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?
