IN Supreme Court Ruling (4th Amd) Update

[rlspach]

I've spent a bit of time following up on the IN Supreme court ruling which stated:

“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

I joined many other people in contacting our Attorney General, who issued a press release that included this interesting bit:

“So while there is no right to commit battery against police, I believe the individual has the right to shut the door, stand his ground and communicate with police without engaging in an altercation.”

I found that both of these statements appear to directly contradict Indiana's Castle doctrine code, which was passed in 2006. The code is IC 35-41-3-2(b)and states:

"A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."

There is no exclusion that I can find for police officers. I have been pursuing this line of reasoning with my representatives and with Attorney General Zoeller. I asked AG Zoeller's office for guidance on how I as a citizen should interpret this conflicting information.

It was sort of useful that there was an incident that occurred immediately after the court ruling in South Bend. Criminals claiming to be police invaded a woman's home:

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt....

The response from AG Zoeller's office:

"Our office is prohibited from giving legal advice or "guidance.""

Similarly I have been in contact with my State representative, who has been quite responsive, and penning personal replies. She was a rep who voted for the Castle code in 2006. Her last response:

"Roger, Since my response to you Speaker Bosma and Senate Pro-tem Long have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision and if not several members are looking at filing a bill next year to make the needed adjustments. I appreciate your information and wanted you to know it is certainly a concern to us and we will do what we can within our capabilities in the General Assembly when we are next in session."

If you're in Indiana, please join me in keeping up the pressure. My next step I think is to write the court encouraging them to reconsider the decision.

 

[John Galt]

It is PARAMOUNT that this incomprehensible decision be overturned. Please do all you can to commit to this cause.

 

[E5RANGER375]

im on board

 

[mk2ja]

…
I have been in contact with my State representative, who has been quite responsive, and penning personal replies. She was a rep who voted for the Castle code in 2006. Her last response:

"Roger, Since my response to you Speaker Bosma and Senate Pro-tem Long have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision and if not several members are looking at filing a bill next year to make the needed adjustments. I appreciate your information and wanted you to know it is certainly a concern to us and we will do what we can within our capabilities in the General Assembly when we are next in session."

If you're in Indiana, please join me in keeping up the pressure. My next step I think is to write the court encouraging them to reconsider the decision.

I have been following this, too. I wonder what else the legislature can do at this point. They've already passed laws that explicitly say what we as citizens are able to do to resist unlawful entries, including unlawful entries by law enforcement, and the ruling from the bench was completely contradictory to the Indiana Code's explicit verbiage. Would the legislature simply pass a resolution verifying that the Indiana Supreme Court was wrong and that the IC as it existed and continues to exist allows for citizens to use force, even deadly force, to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of any person, even law enforcement, into an occupied home, curtiladge, or motor vehicle?

 

[E5RANGER375]

the legistlature and the governor have the power RIGHT NOW to get off their lazy asses and come to the statehouse and change this ruling right now. they dont need to wait till next year. thats just an excuse for "we dont think its important to do anything at this time so in the mean time take it up the butt indiana!"

we need to step on these turds and demand them to do it NOW! keep up the preasure! they work for US!!!!!

 

[FCSD 23-18]

This should be good.

 

[Bill of Rights]

the legistlature and the governor have the power RIGHT NOW to get off their lazy asses and come to the statehouse and change this ruling right now. they dont need to wait till next year. thats just an excuse for "we dont think its important to do anything at this time so in the mean time take it up the butt indiana!"

we need to step on these turds and demand them to do it NOW! keep up the preasure! they work for US!!!!!

I disagree, Ranger. Calling a special session is no small thing. It's not like they can just drop everything in their lives at any time and run down to the State House to take care of this; they plan to be there for months to address the various bills introduced.

I don't like this decision any more than anyone else. The right way to address it is to petition the court to reconsider the case (including the law as already written, which it did not have presented as an issue for consideration before.) If that fails, which is unlikely, IMHO, then they can be called for a special session, address that issue, and go home.

You DO know that there will be some legislators who are in favor of this decision, right?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

I disagree, Ranger. Calling a special session is no small thing. It's not like they can just drop everything in their lives at any time and run down to the State House to take care of this; they plan to be there for months to address the various bills introduced.

I don't like this decision any more than anyone else. The right way to address it is to petition the court to reconsider the case (including the law as already written, which it did not have presented as an issue for consideration before.) If that fails, which is unlikely, IMHO, then they can be called for a special session, address that issue, and go home.

You DO know that there will be some legislators who are in favor of this decision, right?

Blessings,
Bill

well YEAH. Pat deush bag Bauer is still a state rep isnt he?

as long as he is there and feeds his monkeys the music box of tyranny will still be playing in indiana.


But Bill, the reason I think a special session is the ONLY way to do it, is so that it will send a STRONG message to this court and any other court and tell the judges to watch their p's and q's when it comes to the constitution or we will overrule them! and in 2012 we are gonna vote out at least one justice! remind them that even THEY are NOT the law. im gonna be knocking on doors to make sure people remember.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Cannot this recent decision be taken up the chain, so to speak, to US Federal Courts?

-J-

 

[Bunnykid68]

well YEAH. Pat deush bag Bauer is still a state rep isnt he?

as long as he is there and feeds his monkeys the music box of tyranny will still be playing in indiana.


But Bill, the reason I think a special session is the ONLY way to do it, is so that it will send a STRONG message to this court and any other court and tell the judges to watch their p's and q's when it comes to the constitution or we will overrule them! and in 2012 we are gonna vote out at least one justice! remind them that even THEY are NOT the law. im gonna be knocking on doors to make sure people remember.

If you knock on my door make sure you got your gun on ya and a cold beer in one hand

 

[mk2ja]

Cannot this recent decision be taken up the chain, so to speak, to US Federal Courts?

-J-

Well, even before we get to the matter of the 4th Amendment, the ruling is in most obvious conflict with the Indiana Code. I would think that having the Indiana Supreme Court is most appropriate. I dunno, I guess I just see this as a state issue that we don't need to take up to the feds; we can find a way to handle it "in house," as it were.

If you knock on my door make sure you got your gun on ya and a cold beer in one hand

 

[jeremy]

But Bill, the reason I think a special session is the ONLY way to do it, is so that it will send a STRONG message to this court and any other court and tell the judges to watch their p's and q's when it comes to the constitution or we will overrule them! and in 2012 we are gonna vote out at least one justice! remind them that even THEY are NOT the law. im gonna be knocking on doors to make sure people remember.

You knock on my Door I expect you to arrive with some Good Booze or there will be trouble...

 

[E5RANGER375]

You knock on my Door I expect you to arrive with some Good Booze or there will be trouble...

you guys make me raugh

im very good with grassroots. ive been on some good campaigns and I will make sure that a solid effort is launched in a professional and organized way to vote this clown off the bench when he comes up.

it will be a reverse campaign

 

[rlspach]

I'm with MK2JA - based on recent precedent, taking it up to the USSC is very, very dangerous.

 

[GARANDGUY]

you guys make me raugh

im very good with grassroots. ive been on some good campaigns and I will make sure that a solid effort is launched in a professional and organized way to vote this clown off the bench when he comes up.

it will be a reverse campaign

Im in!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Cannot this recent decision be taken up the chain, so to speak, to US Federal Courts?

-J-

Who would have standing?

 

[Fargo]

Who would have standing?

The guy who got convicted on the resist. However, an appeal from a state Supreme Court goes to the SCOTUS and is discretionary. It also must be based on a question of federal law. I'm not holding my breath that Cert would be granted on this or that the outcome would be favorable in the SCOTUS on 4th Am. grounds.

Changing the statute is far more feasible.

Best,

Joe

 

[mk2ja]

Changing the statute is far more feasible.

But, to what would we change it that could be any more clear than it already is?

 

[Fargo]

But, to what would we change it that could be any more clear than it already is?

Interesting question. As the defense in the case apparently never cited justification under the use of force statute, it appears the court never considered it. Rather, the defense cited the common law right to resist which existed alongside the statute up until this case.

I would think that a statute saying:

"A person has a right to resist by reasonable means unlawful entry of his home, residence, or dwelling by a law enforcement officer."

would clear the matter up tidily. I agree it is already covered by the current statute but in light of that travesty of an opinion I think it could use a bit of clarification.

Plus, why skip a chance to stick it to those three wannabe oligarchs on the Supreme Court who think that the meaning of Article 1 Section 11 changes at their whim?

Best,

Joe

 

[sbcman]

I watched an segment tonight on Fox 7 news Evansville where they had the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor speak to this issue. In short, he said there's really nothing to worry about and that all the ruling means is that "it's really not a good idea to resist law enforcement officers coming into your home."

Man, I just feel all warm and fuzzy about it now.