oldslabsides wrote: 
The ruling wasn't on the powers of cops.  The ruling was on the rights of homeowners to resist the cops. For instance in the Chicago Times story the first line is "People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home". That doesn't mean that officers can just enter your home; it means that if they do you shouldn't resist.  If they don't have a warrant or probable cause, then sue them, the officers will be disciplined etc.  Do homeowners need the right to resist police officers? And at what point can homeowners exercise this right?  Imagine the case where officers have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and can therefor enter the property and the homeowner disagrees with their assessment that they should enter. Either he resists, someone gets hurt and it goes to court, or he doesn't resist and he take them to court.  Simple; only one option doesn't end with people getting hurt.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Again, if the cops are allowed to assume whatever they wish and act upon it, we're screwed.  I'm still not speaking to the case, I'm speaking to the ruling.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Of course we're going to have this discussion because we don't agree on what the law is and I don't think a law was broken*. In this case there's no thought of a search or seizure, but they do have a report of a domestic. As others have noted, the police will see those cases through to the end, in every state. Someone is going to be removed from the house until such time as it's clear no one is being abused. We demanded these policy changes after too many wife-beaters turned police officers away at the door saying it was the TV up too loud.

*based on the description of events. But the judges stipulate that the entry was unlawful (making the court ruling egregious IMO too), so obviously the description isn't complete.

 callum wrote:

Civil???   come on Callum.This is America. 

edit///I'm foolin'; I know what you mean.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
thank  you; .....my point exactly.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I've never believed that makes breaking the law okay.  If cops can go around acting on assumptions with impunity then they can do any damn thing they please.  If those tasked with enforcing it are allowed to violate the law as policy then we have truly achieved a police state.

I think this sums it up well,

"Justices Robert Rucker and  Brent Dickson dissented, saying the court's decision runs counter to 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."

As said here, domestic violence issues  (and I know from working in the field) are a very different animal, and it may be wise to have exceptions. But this ruling can be twisted to give wayyy too much power to the police.

Also, I don't like the shift in responsibility... the police can act unlawfuly, and the public has to prove in court why.  It makes more sense that it's up to law inforcement to handle necessary legal requirements... ie, get a warrant.  In the situation of the couple that triggered the ruling, they could have simply waited outside the door until a warrant was called in (they can call for a warrant in some circumstances, right?) 

There are a thousand cases of domestic violence where the officers hands are tied, because they have not *seen* the abuse.  That's because they err on the side of the law. The side of the public. 

(tangent) In our state, when a domestic violence call is made, someone is arrested, no matter what.  Sometimes the charges are dropped.  A lot of times the call is made out of frustration or spite... and it really does damage to one of the couple.  But it sure as hell cuts down on frivolous DV complaints!

 oldslabsides wrote: 
You're right, the ruling makes a broad statement that will be ground to dust by the (current) supremes I hope. I didn't assume the quote was accurate, but it is, so obviously it's been stipulated that the entry was unlawful. I disagree with that tho. Assume officers had been called to the apartment and the couple were inside from the start, but husband refuses to open the door. Can they go in, or do they have to just leave? The assumption is that someone is in danger, so 4th amendment doesn't apply since it's not actually a search but a rescue. If a fire had been reported but they refused to answer the door, what then?

 “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,”

Yes, it's a poorly written article, but if the above quote from the ruling is correct then the ruling is all the way wrong, wrong - wrong.  I'm not speaking to the incident on which the ruling is based - that's inconsequential at this point - what matters is the ruling.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 


in a domestic situation, police will follow thru to the end, but the Indiana supreme court is saying warrants are no longer necessary to enter a home for ANY reason.

Shouldn't the assumption be that if you have a problem with the civil authority, you take them to court?  But thats not approaching it with the American paranoia about the state...

Well first of all, you need to read news sources that have better writing. Second, there isn't a police officer in the country who would have acted differently in that situation. When they're called to a domestic disturbance, officers are going to have a talk with everyone involved. It's not search and seizure, it's probable cause.

From your link:

• In this case the police were called to investigate a domestic disturbance, in which a husband and wife were arguing outside their apartment. As the couple entered the apartment the husband told the police they were not needed and then blocked the doorway entrance into the apartment. When the officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against the wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

I was just having a discussion with a lawyer friend of mine about an incident in Alabama.

 I likened it to Nazis pulling /taking people from their homes; he to good police work.

I look forward to hearing yall's take on this.

Now...it could happen anywhere.

http://www.webnewsjax.com/indiana-supreme-court-ruling-police-can-enter-private-homes-with-out-exception/
Additional sources:

http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2011/5/14/us-snapshot-indiana-supreme-court-rules-police-can-enter-hom.html
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-ind-court-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry-20110513,0,1713312.story