[Peace-discuss] dream about the moonlight on the wall bash...

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna 
Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers 
have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, 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.

"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."

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.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which 
police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside 
their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told 
police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not 
enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer 
against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and 
arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, 
said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing 
violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the 
hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we 
would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in 
entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action 
against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a 
Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision 
runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"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. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for 
police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported 
the ruling.

But 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."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court 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. Prior 
to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's 
permission to enter without knocking.