Northwest Indiana Discussion

Northwest Indiana's Leading Discussion Forum
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: IND SUPREME COURT RULING TOTALITARIAN SUBVERSION OF FREEDOM
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 630
"Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." A. Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863.


Now then, review for yourselves the utter contempt our government has for the people of the Indiana.


In the Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 82S05-1007-CR-343
RICHARD L. BARNES,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court, No. 82D02-0808-CM-759
The Honorable Mary Margaret Lloyd, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 82A05-0910-CR-592

May 12, 2011
________________________

David, Justice. [excerpted]

A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

Before the trial, Barnes tendered a jury instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen‘s home. The trial court refused Barnes‘s instruction and did not otherwise instruct the jury as to the right to reasonably resist. Barnes‘s tendered instruction is as follows:

"When an arrest is attempted by means of a forceful and unlawful entry into a citizen‘s home, such entry represents the use of excessive force, and the arrest cannot be considered peaceable. Therefore, a citizen has the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry. The jury found Barnes guilty of battery on a police officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct. "

Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court‘s refusal to give his tendered jury instruction and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court‘s refusal of Barnes‘s tendered jury instruction was not harmless error. Barnes v. State, 925 N.E.2d 420, 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

We acknowledge that the Court of Appeals followed its own precedents in its analysis. Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. Accordingly, the trial court‘s refusal to give Barnes‘s tendered instruction was not error.

The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) ("One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.").

In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where ―resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.‖ Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942).

The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1318 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged the trend of abolishing the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, it ultimately focused on the heightened expectation of privacy in one‘s home and recognized a right to resist an unlawful entry into a home by a police officer. Id. at 1315–18.

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s 'measured‘ response may fast become excessive.‖).

Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in ―hot pursuit‖ of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (―Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.‖). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984).

In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance. Here, the trial court‘s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment.

-----------------

This is the scariest development since the capture of the German government by the Nazi Party and successful toppling of the Czarist government in Russia by Vlad Lenin and the Communist Party.

The entire legacy of not only our constitutional protections but the progressive history of mankind's natural right to individual sovereignty and space has been summarily abolished by the utterly subjective fiat of the Indiana Supreme Court - after the state legislature has adjourned.

Now there is a presumptive legal indifference to your innocence or guilt. We, the people, are now substantively subordinated to the interests of a police-oriented state. This is none other than the face of totalitarianism. Soon they will effectively restrict our rights to first amendment protections.

Lincoln said it best: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IND SUPREME COURT RULING TOTALITARIAN SUBVERSION OF FREEDOM
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:05 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:20 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Hammond
NO ONE has a right to enter my home, and I will defend it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IND SUPREME COURT RULING TOTALITARIAN SUBVERSION OF FREEDOM
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 6:00 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 630
Neometric wrote:

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). 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—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (―But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s 'measured‘ response may fast become excessive.‖).



Since when was the judicial branch authorized to make public policy?

Isn't this a power delegated solely to the legislative branch of our government?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IND SUPREME COURT RULING TOTALITARIAN SUBVERSION OF FREEDOM
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:21 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:28 pm
Posts: 141
Don't answer the door. A few years back we had several vehicles and garages broken into in our cul-de-sac. The deputy came out to make out reports and take statements. When he got to me, he asked me for some identification. I told him it was in the house and I would go get it. As I opened the front door I saw his hand reach to hold it open. I advised him he could wait in the driveway and shut the door in his face. The a**h*** thought he was going to walk right in my house. Of course he asked for my SSN because it isn't on my license. I told him i don't give it out to anybody.

_________________
Even for you, that's a whole new mountain of stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IND SUPREME COURT RULING TOTALITARIAN SUBVERSION OF FREEDOM
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:24 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:58 am
Posts: 47
Come into my house without invatation and you or I will die. 8)

_________________
Strive to Improve


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group