To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.
Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with
(
Read more... )
Would you mind explaining that? Where does the Fourth Amendment vest in the home-owner the power of enforcing its provisions against the police?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
So, you're saying both that they can appeal to the court for relief (thus enforcement rests with the courts), and that they can physically resist the intrusion? Or one or the other? What the court says here is, "You cannot physically resist. If you want relief, come to us." And you can do that. What you've said in that post would allow the Indiana ruling.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
IMO, the best way to do that is via the court system - it reduces the chance of rash and disproportionate responses on either side, provides a neutral arbiter, and "cools" the conflict over time, while carrying the mark of legitimacy that the courts provide (at least, when you agree with the ruling :P ). Giving the decision for what's "reasonable" into the hands of every homeowner everywhere is asking to have them overreact.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
You're a homeowner, and you're perfectly innocent of every crime under the sun. The cops show up at your doorstep with a warrant to search your house for evidence of . You know with epistemological certainty that you are innocent, therefor you will think their search is unreasonable. Now, let's presume that whatever evidence they had that you *did* commit a crime was strong, but they were interpreting it wrong, or something. But they definitely fulfill the warrant requirements (probable cause and particularity ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
[quoting the decision] "a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. 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."
[the reporter's restatement]Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with the officer's entry.The difference between the court's statement and the reporter's version is vast. One states that force in the moment is an improper means of obtaining a remedy to an illegal entry ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment