The debate is not over what the ruling said or that it needs to be overturned ASAP; it's over how much to read into it:
"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.Emphasis mine. Yes, please note that ancient, inescapable wisdom: if the police have to come for you, they're bringin' a whuppin'. And it's not because they're thugs -- most aren't -- or that they like it -- most don't; it's because their job is to get control of the situation and get the principals off to where things can be resolved without swapping fisticuffs or hot lead (etc.). In that statement, the judge is simply indulging in a bit of realpolitik.
"'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.'"
What got under my skin like scabies was this: "David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system." Which means while the judge recognizes some right to be free inside your own skull, your person may indeed be hauled off; and as for your property, why, Mr. Impeach Justice Steven David appears to be no less than a follower of Proudhon. And heavens forfend you should not be able to hire a sharp lawyer!
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, Valparaiso University School of Law: "...[I]f the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer." Help me out here: "...your remedy...is to bring a civil action...." means it's on your dime, doesn't it? Or the ICLU/ACLU, if you smell interesting enough to them; and otherwise, well, tough, sucker, buy yourself a new door, a new dog, a new cat, and replacements for all the things folks removed while you were locked up and your house wasn't, plus hire yourself a lawyer to sue the Local Police all the way up the appeals process -- if you can. Pretty thin damn' shield for your "right [...] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," isn't it?
(Though I do wonder if Mr. Impeach Justice Steven David doesn't take the ellipsis "of the people" from my Fourth Amendment quote as meaning a collective rather than an individual right and thus reads it as protecting the "persons, houses, papers and effects" of the State from the like of you and me? That would be consistent with what I've seen of what the man fobs off as "legal thinking.")
The good news is, I don't think the ruling will ever be read this broadly until tested, if then; and the dissenting Justices didn't disappoint, to wit: Justice Robert Rucker: "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;" Justice Brent Dickson: "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad." (See how kewl they are when they agree with me?)
But I do regret coming home irked and griping that the ruling spits in the face of the Fourth Amendment and that it is Time To Do Something. Tam's point -- and she's right -- is that it has been that time our whole lives and long before; and wottinhell had we been doing? Whatever it was, if it'll push the culture out of this mudpit, do it even more.
And beg Tam to keep doing it, too, please:
Thanks for the legal advice.
You're right. 1984 has come to Broad Ripple, and so this is the end of VFTP.
8:24 PM, May 13, 2011"
Dammit. I'm almost sure that's hyperbole, but....
PS: Impeach Justice Steven David! And Justices Randall Shepard and Frank Sullivan, Jr. right beside him!
PPS: Relatedly, our Hoosier Supremes ruled police may do no-knock executions of warrants at their own discretion, no need to convince a judge. --And this is supposed to increase officer safety? Not likely! Criminals have little to lose and innocents at the wrong address have no way to tell. Please knock first at my house. Please.