Issuing a 3-2 decision in Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, the Indiana Supreme Court has pronounced that citizens of Indiana have no right to resist illegal police entry into their home.
Justice Steven David writes in the majority opinion: "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. 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." (emphasis added)
Well, perhaps police should make certain they make only legal entries into private homes, so they don't get shot or otherwise injured by an ordinary citizen who is legally defending his family and personal property.
Apparently David and the two other Constitutionally-illiterate justices believe precedent, their own opinions, and the latest law school graduate's white papers are more important than the Constitution itself.
Ironically, this is exactly what the Founders aimed to prevent when they wrote the Fourth Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights). It reads:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Note the absence of any "violence prevention" thinking? In other words, the Indiana court's decision is plainly unconstitutional.
|The Magna Carta
A final, comforting thought: David further opined that a person arrested during unlawful entry by police can be released on bail, and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. So, even though you're minding your own business and the police have no legal right to enter your home, David isn't troubled by your unlawful arrest or imprisonment, either.
That is "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," and it has no place in our Constitutional Republic.