Your home is your castle? Not in Indiana

There is a movement, actually supported by many liberals, to overrule the exclusionary rule as a poor way to uphold the Fourth Amendment. This is because, as currently understood, only guilty people have a real recourse - that is, having evidence excluded from trial. The exclusionary rule doesn't deter police at all, either, because police clearance rates are universally established by arrest rates, not convictions. They couldn't care less what happens post-charge.

 

Honestly, do you really think our state Supreme Courts should be issuing opinions indicating that, if you belive a cop is entering improperly, it's OK to use violence against him to stop it?

Your extreme civil libertarian bent is admirable in an ideal world, JR, but in the real world judicial opinions constructed on that philosopy would lead to chaos.

Honestly, after reading a bit more about this opinion, I'm not sure why this is really even all that debate-worthy here. The court wasn't denying the right of the people to sue or take other legal action against the cops for improper entry. Its only point is that the way to handle a believed improper entry is not through force or using it as a chance to act out those long-imagined Charles Bronson vigilante fantasies. Again, doesn't really strike me as all that controversial of an opinion.

 

I'm not advocating violence against cops but the experience up here, which admittedly is different than in the US, is that when these events are investigated after the fact, the police stonewall.

The law should be clear in any jurisdiction. Unless the cops have a warrant, they have no business trying to enter a private home.

 

They still don't - or at least probable cause. This decision doesn't change that. (With some already existing exceptions - like exigent circumstances.)

 

One thing that needs to be cleared up on this thread is the idea that probable cause to make an arrest gives police authority to enter and search a person's home. It does not. Probable cause to make an arrest gives the police authority to make an arrest. If the suspect is outside of his home when probable cause for an arrest is established it is illegal for them to then enter the home without consent.

If the suspect is arrested inside his home the authorities may do a cursory sweep of the office to determine that there is no else present for their safety and they may seize any evidence found in plain sight but it is illegal to conduct a search beyond that.

Probable cause is also the legal standard for what is needed to obtain a search warrant -- a search warrant that must be approved by a judge. A police officer cannot legally conduct a search of a home based on his unilateral determination.

 

There are several circumstances that may give the cops the right to enter without a warrant, such as exigent circumstances, plain view etc...

Point of Order is right on here...an arrest warrant does not give the cops the right to search the home; all that is allowed is a brief search in the immediate area incident to the arrest.

On the contrary, a search warrant for the home would allow the cops to search inside the house.