Beanie wrote: 
I agree but for some reason I haven't deciphered, the judges and the state all are not contesting this; they're stipulating that it was an unlawful entry.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
A woman was voicing a fear of attack and physical abuse.  This was a lawful entry.  One partner saying yes overrules the other partner saying no, especially if there is a threat of imminent violence.  Pretty cut and dried.  The judges decided to expand the ruling in a way that makes a jump in both logic and the law.

 islander wrote: 
Hardee har har!

 hippiechick wrote: 
The supreme court is now going to be looking into our spelling errors on RP?  Slabby's right, the Man has too much power. < /sarcasm >

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Really?  An obvious domestic argument with high violence potential. A guy who is already arguing with police barricades himself and his wife in the home while his wife is pleading to have the officers come in, and you think they should just pack up with a "nothing to see here" and go on their way?  

Couple of points:
The police have the right to detain citizens when investigating an incident - They probably could and should have prevented him from re-entering the home.

The wife was pleading to let the police in. I'm not sure about the legal requirements for establishing ownership, but if two parties are in a house and one wants the police to come in and the other does not, I think it's a stretch to call that an unlawful entry.

The judges are clearly morons. Any precedent you are concerned about here will not stand very long. All your rights to be secure in your home (even to do some illegal stuff with impunity) are still there. 

I bet the ACLU will side with the judges if some victim of this needs help - unless of course its an illegal immigrant thats the victim and then they will be all over it....

Those judges need to be be immediately recalled and then prosecuted for abuse of power and spend serious jail time. If this makes it through its the start of a very slippery slope indeed.     

 callum wrote: 
I would say if a cop no longer needs a warrant to enter your house that is a POWER of police issue. Did it not address both the power of police AND the right to resist that power?

 oldslabsides wrote: 



that's so old school.. ..  just foolin' with you.

 callum wrote: 
Chicago Tribune

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take a look at this and shoot it down.

 triskele wrote: 
It's the new AmeriKa.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I guess MODERN now means "We can do what the fuck we want."

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Check Zep's link and revisit this... the woman was pleading for the husband to let them in.

 Zep wrote: 
As usual the facts present a somewhat grayer picture.
 
semantics

This article seems to use illegal and unlawful interchangeably. I was starting to wonder if there was a hair the judges were splitting by their use of unlawful.

/semantics

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Based on the description of events in the article, the entry was unlawful.  Yes, the police should have left - two people arguing isn't against the law.

is that not unconstitutional? how can you make warrants un-necessary? 

 callum wrote: 
My home is my castle.  NO ONE - especially the cops - gets to make an unlawful entry into my home while I'm in it.  The burden of proof is on them, not me; by entering my home against my will THEY are perpetrating violence.  Proving they were in the wrong and I was innocent in a court of law operated by the establishment that the cops work for is not something I should have to do.  THEY (the cops) are the ones who need to think really hard before they force entry to someone's home and an assumption based on (probably) a third party's report isn't "probable cause."

I'm sure you've already surmised we're never gonna come together on this one, lad.  

Eugene Volokh's take.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Right, and I've said so. This case is stupid and 3 judges should be out of jobs.
 
Do you agree, based on the description of events, that the entry was unlawful? Don't go by what the judges said because we both agree they'e morons. Should the police have said "Good Day to you then sir!" and turned around?

I agree with Scott: the case was an exception and the court used it to establish a much-too-broad rule. It won't stand up.