Barnes v Indiana - resisting unlawful entry...

[jgalt]

...by police.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

The opening paragraph:

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

Found here, with excellent commentary: http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2011/05/barnes-v-indiana.html

[Rotary12]

Well I feel safer already. I think I'll just leave my doors open and hand over all manner of weapons to the authorities as they know whats best for me and my family.

Really, what kind of cr@p is this? When did we start living a police state?

Just a little rant, I'm over it for now.

[bensdad]

How bout if they start bustin' up my things? Can I resist then? Let's say he (they) give my distraught wife a little shove? What if he (they) put a few of my things in their pockets? How bout if he (they) give my kid a smack for talkin' back?

Methinks we're all a bunch of boilin' frogs.

[nyffman]

Methinks we're all a bunch of boilin' frogs.

Not yet but they're turning up the heat, aren't they?

[bensdad]

Methinks we're all a bunch of boilin' frogs.

Not yet but they're turning up the heat, aren't they?

Let's not worry about it now. I have nachos and the game is starting.

[Dave Pendleton]

I told some of my friends years ago that this sort of thing would come to pass. And they laughed; called me a libertarian loon.

I'm not clairvoyant, or even all that savvy, but it's not too hard to draw these conclusions given our current state of affairs. There's a terrorist behind every blade of grass, you know. If you've flown recently, you know that we're all potential terrorists.

Furthermore, I'll go on record right now that this so-called bin Laden "treasure trove" of intelligence (of which you or I will never, ever see) will be used as the justification for all manner of civil liberties violations.

AMTRAK is first.

Stay tuned.

[traveler]

Even if the police are wrong, they are right?

Isn't that the very basis, the foundation if you will, for a police state?

[cmj685]

yah, really disturbing decision. Let's hope it is decisively overturned by a higher court. It is the kind of decision you would expect from a San Francisco court, not an Indiana court. It may just show how virulent the spread of this kind of thinking has become...and how much danger the America which the founders established is in.

[Chandler CCW]

I told some of my friends years ago that this sort of thing would come to pass. And they laughed; called me a libertarian loon.

I'm not clairvoyant, or even all that savvy, but it's not too hard to draw these conclusions given our current state of affairs. There's a terrorist behind every blade of grass, you know. If you've flown recently, you know that we're all potential terrorists.

Furthermore, I'll go on record right now that this so-called bin Laden "treasure trove" of intelligence (of which you or I will never, ever see) will be used as the justification for all manner of civil liberties violations.

AMTRAK is first.

Stay tuned.

I read stories online EVERY day about Police who apparently seem to be way overstepping their boundaries.
It certainly doesn't seem to be a trend that's going in the direction we'd hope for, which is respect for the rule of law.

I fear this will result in people growing tired of being pushed too far, and there will be more police deaths.
More police deaths will result in justification for more police force and the beginning of a police state where the 4th amendment means nothing.

[hammAR]

yah, really disturbing decision. Let's hope it is decisively overturned by a higher court.....

Unlikely:

Supreme Court sides with police in warrantless search
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment.

The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."

In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.
"Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said.

The case concerned exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement that police need a warrant to enter a home.
.
.
.
Read More:

[Dave Pendleton]

And so it begins...

[ComradeBurg]

Even if the police are wrong, they are right?

Considering the state runs both the courts and police I think there is a large area for conflict of interest to crop up. I'm not surprised the courts said the police are perfectly OK in performing illegal actions and that us mere peasants can't defend ourselves against a rouge officer.

[Chandler CCW]

I'm not even going to say what I really think.

[Dave Pendleton]

I'm not even going to say what I really think.

Good, because it gets worse.

Did anyone really think this wasn't going to happen?

[jgalt]

I'm not even going to say what I really think.

Good, because it gets worse.

Did anyone really think this wasn't going to happen?

Headline from the link:

IN(diana) Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will