f******u
发帖数: 767 | 4 警察和社工的情况不同 ，但社工去ghetto办公往往会拉上警察的。
这是印地安那州去年的一𠆤法庭判例，不知是否会上诉到最高法院？
其中这句最TMD精釆：＂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 "
Indiana Supreme Court Rules Police Can Enter Home Without Warrant
Indiana Supreme Court overturned 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. EA Worldview
reports 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. |
