OFFLINE

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation.

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.

"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," Rucker said.

Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

Thursday's decision was the court's second ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Previously, police serving a warrant had to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

remember all that fuss about the patriot act? yet now, we have silence, as our rights are slowly eroded...

OFFLINE

I imagine this will get overturned in Federal court.

OFFLINE

I hope so.  I dont like the idea of anyone being able to bust into my home and me having no rights.

OFFLINE

In my mind, as a law abiding citizen, I have the right to defend my home and property from whomever threatens me. Does right extend to law enforcement if law enforcement is willfully disregarding the law??? Does law enforcement identification automatically protect them???

OFFLINE

just another disturbing illustration of the police-state we're creating. the more we empower law enforcement, the more it costs our free and open society. now i don't have a problem with equipping law enforcement with the latest in technology to do their jobs, but they don't need authority that goes beyond the framework of the constitution to do that. again, security at the expense of liberty.