Tag Archives: Due Process

#BelieveSurvivors: California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman accused of sexual assault

Demorat Eric Bauman

Eric Bauman was all for destroying Justice Kavanaugh based on flimsy allegations. Some of his tweets/retweets during the confirmation process:

“This says it all: #DefeatKavanaugh. Time for justice for the 1 in 6 women who are victims of sexual violence. #MeToo #BelieveSurvivors #TimesUp #WhyIDidntReport”

“Any person listening to #ChristinaBlaseyFord testify who does not hear & feel her pain & see her deep emotion as she relives this trauma, is heartless & utterly inhuman. The contrast between the sensitivity of the Democratic Senators & the GOP prosecutor is stark. #KavaNOPE

‘The safety and dignity of women is no longer secondary to the needs of powerful men.’ @timesupnow is calling for Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court”

“A vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He (President Trump) is a profile in cowardice.”

Wonder if Bauman still wants us to #BelieveSurvivors now that he’s being accused of sexual harassment? Is it time for Kavanaugh-style justice or for Bauman to have his due process?

From SF Chronicle: California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman has been accused of sexually assaulting or harassing staff members by Vice Chairman Daraka Larimore-Hall, the party’s third-in-command.

In an email sent Saturday to the party’s executive board, Larimore-Hall said he has filed a complaint with the party’s human resources department, calling for Bauman to be removed as chairman in light of what Larimore-Hall called “credible, corroborated and utterly heart-breaking allegations.”

“I take seriously any allegation brought forward by anyone who believes they have been caused pain,” Bauman, the state party’s first openly gay chairman, said in a statement Saturday evening. He said an independent investigation of the allegations had been undertaken by a “respected outside investigator” to ensure that staffers making the charges are “free from any concerns of retaliation.”

“Procedures are in place to handle these matters, and independent counsel will ensure that they are followed. I look forward to putting these allegations behind us and moving forward as unified Democrats.

Larimore-Hall did not respond to requests for comment, but in the email to the executive board he said that he had been recently approached by “a number of party staff” who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by Bauman at party functions.

“I will forever be inspired by the bravery of these young political professionals, many of whom are at the very beginnings of their careers,” Larimore-Hall wrote.

Larimore-Hall included no details about the alleged incidents or the staff members who reportedly were assaulted. In his email, he said that he would allow the victims to decide whether to come forward. “Obviously, it is completely unacceptable for Chairman Bauman to remain in office” given the allegations, he said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Fremont, called the allegations “shocking” on Twitter Friday evening and suggested Bauman be replaced by Michele Dauber, a law professor at Stanford who spearheaded the effort to recall Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky. The judge sparked national outrage after he sentenced a Stanford athlete to six months in jail for sexually assaulting and attempting to rape an unconscious woman.

“We need a bold feminist to lead for 2020,” Khanna said. He also said he’d also support Kimberly Ellis of Richmond, whom Bauman bested in the contentious race for the party’s top job by just 62 votes last year at the state party convention.

That race exposed deep fault lines within the state’s Democratic Party. Bauman, a longtime party insider, was seen by the party’s more left-leaning faction as insufficiently progressive, too cozy with business interests and willing to disregard the demands of the party’s grassroots members.

Hene Kelly, an executive board member and regional director for the party in the Bay Area, said the allegations ought to be investigated but worried that they would sap some of the momentum built up in the wake of state Democrat’s resounding victories during the midterms.

“I’m absolutely torn up about this, because this is not what we need right now,” she said.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Attritional strategy: Washington state wants to apply ERPOs to minors, prove you have no firearms in the family home

Just another way for the gun grabbers to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

From MyNorthwest.com: Prosecutors in Washington are looking to expand the state’s Red Flag laws to include minors.

Red Flag laws – or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOS) – are civil orders that allow judges to temporarily suspend a person’s gun rights, even if they haven’t committed a crime, when they exhibit violent behavior that suggests they pose a risk to themselves or others.

Washington was among the first of five states to pass a Red Flag law when voters overwhelmingly approved I-1491 in 2016. Another eight states passed similar laws this year after the Parkland shooting, and four more states are considering them now.

The laws vary by state as far as who can petition the court for the civil orders, with some only allowing law enforcement to file for them, while others allow family members, roommates, people who share children, and some medical professionals to petition the courts.

In Washington, police and family members can petition the courts for an emergency 14-day order to take away a person’s guns. That can be followed with a one-year ban if the court is convinced the pattern of behavior shows the person is a risk to themselves or others.

State law is silent on whether minors can be the subject of an ERPO, but there is an effort to change that.

For the past several months, a legislative task force made up of police, mental health experts, school shooting survivors, the ACLU, and others has been meeting to develop strategies to prevent mass shootings, and it recently released a list of 25 recommendations.

Among the recommendations, clarifying state law to make clear ERPOs can apply to minors.

Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt with King County’s Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Unit – the only specialized unit in the state that helps other police agencies statewide and family members with ERPOs – believes the orders should apply to juveniles.

“We’ve had that issue come up multiple times, and we’ve been asked around the state by other law enforcement agencies that are struggling with the same issue. To date, I don’t know of any that have been filed yet against juveniles, but we have one particular case where we are making that recommendation to law enforcement right now,” Wyatt said.

In this case, they are working with a school resource officer at a school where a student under 18 is facing charges for a crime, requiring he not have access to weapons to determine if they need an Extreme Risk Protection Order.

“We would file the ERPO against the juvenile because the father has access to firearms in the home, and the father is not being cooperative with law enforcement to confirm that the firearms are out of the home,” Wyatt said.

She said police had tried several times to confirm with the father where the guns are located, but he refuses to comply.

Wyatt said using the ERPO would not be about taking away the father’s firearms rights.

We’re trying to say, ‘Dad lawfully can possess those guns,’ and we would hope that most parents have given law enforcement reassurances where the firearms are. But in this particular case, the father has declined to give any of those reassurances. So we would say that the juvenile could not be in that home with access to firearms. If dad wants to keep the firearms in the home and not share the information, you know that puts him in a difficult position,” Wyatt said.

If the ERPO was served on the child in this case, the dad would then have to choose between proving to law enforcement where the guns are so they know they’re not in the house, or having the child live elsewhere.

Wyatt says overall, they are seeing a lot of success with ERPOs, including another case where they served one to an 18-year-old student in Seattle, who police came to talk to regarding a drug issue and were allowed to search his bag. When school officials and law enforcement searched the student’s bag, they found a loaded gun with the safety off in the backpack.

Wyatt said that on top of the criminal issues there, that the 18-year-old showed extremely negligent behavior with a firearm. That ultimately was why they filed an ERPO against the student, to ensure he could no longer legally buy guns currently legally available.

Those are just some of the examples Wyatt gave lawmakers earlier this month to highlight the importance of ERPOs, and the urgent need to clarify the state law on their use in juvenile cases, as the work group recommended.

The work group also recommended more promotion of the existence of ERPOs and their uses to both law enforcement and the public, and that a second violation of an Extreme Risk Protection Order leads to the permanent loss of a person’s firearms rights.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Why no Red Flag law enforcement? Mercy Hospital shooter allowed to purchase gun despite previously threatening to shoot up fire academy

Last Monday a shooter went to Mercy Hospital in Chicago and killed his ex-fiancé, a pharmacy resident and a Chicago police officer. He shot himself yet was killed by a police bullet. The shooter wanted a ring back from his ex-fiancé, which led to this tragic incident.

Read about the whole incident here.

Of course without knowing all the details about the shooter, the gun grabbers blamed the NRA, Dana Loesch and lack of gun control.

Let’s take a look at the details we now know, shall we?

According to the Chicago Tribune, the shooter had a troubled history, particularly with women. From their report:

Five years ago, the shooter had threatened to shoot up the Chicago Fire Department Academy, around the time he was fired for failing to show up to work while facing allegations of “improper conduct” toward women there.”

According to a spokesman for the Chicago Fire Department, the shooter was accused of aggressive and improper conduct toward females at the academy and he did not successfully complete his training and was terminated before he finished the academy. No one at the Academy ever reported the threat made to shoot up the Academy to the police.

In 2014, his ex-wife obtained a temporary order of protection against him, alleging that he slept with a pistol under his pillow and had pointed a gun at someone.

Police had advised his ex-wife on how to get a protective order. Police did not investigate further (after the shooter sent his ex-wife harassing texts) nor did they seek out the shooter. The police had “limited probable cause” to pursue the matter.

More details included in that temporary order of protection from Chicago Tribune:

The shooter had twice “pulled out his gun with intent to harm” people when he felt threatened or startled in the prior weeks. In the first instance, he pointed a gun at a real estate agent who arrived at his apartment after forgetting that he had scheduled an appointment to show the home. In another incident, the shooter “felt threatened by a neighbor and ran outside with his gun to look for him,” according to the court records.

The order signed by a judge that day included a demand that Lopez “should be ordered to surrender any and all firearms to the local law enforcement agency.” The order of protection was in effect just over two weeks. A judge dismissed it Dec. 17.”

Despite the two incidents above (threat to shoot up the Academy and temporary protective order), the shooter was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. It was unclear whether the shooter’s alleged past conduct had ever led to any review or temporary revocation of his permission to own or carry a gun.

The shooter was able to obtain an FOID card and a concealed carry permit in 2016. Chicago Police reviewed his application and were unaware of the dismissed protective order. Since the protective order was dismissed, the police could not have denied the shooter a license to carry.

One final note from the Chicago Tribune report: “It was unclear whether Lopez’s legal ability to own or carry a gun was ever challenged or revoked. Officials from the Illinois State Police, the agency responsible for issuing those credentials, declined to comment.”

As defenders of the Second Amendment, we are big fans of due process. From the looks of it, the shooter did not have any legal reason why he could not obtain an FOID license.

But what about the “Red Flag” law that is designed to confiscate firearms of a person deemed an immediate and present danger to themselves or others?

About the “Red Flag” law in Illinois (excerpts from 430 ILCS 65/1):

“Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24-3.1 of the Criminal Code of 2012, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.”

The statute goes on to describe ways in which firearms can be confiscated from a person who communicates a serious threat or physical act of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim; or demonstrates a threatening physical or verbal behavior such as assaultive threats or actions. This can be determined by a law enforcement official, among other people.

Just how “workable” is this system?

The shooter had clearly communicated a serious threat of violence when he threatened to shoot up the Chicago Fire Department Academy. The shooter displayed assaultive actions when he pulled out his gun with intent to harm.

Why did no one report these incidents to the local police? Why did no one feel the need to initiate a proceeding to enforce the Red Flag law?

Gun grabbers want laws on the books to confiscate firearms of dangerous people. Yet are these laws intentionally designed to be useless? This Red Flag law is only enforceable IF someone takes action.

According to gun grabbers Everytown: “Red Flag Laws can save lives by creating a way for family members and law enforcement to act before warning signs escalate into tragedies.”

Key word here is “act.”

If no one acts on warning signs, then dangerous people cannot be stopped.

The cynical side of me believes the “Red Flag” law was designed with inherent flaws. Not everyone will “act” to prevent shootings.

And by the reasoning of gun grabbers, if gun control laws don’t work then shouldn’t the government – as the protector of public safety – confiscate all guns? After all, it would be much less messier to confiscate than nuke the “resisters.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

#BelieveWomen? Charges dropped against cop due to “sophisticated ruse”

This is why we have due process, proggies.

From MyNorthwest: All charges against a former Bellevue (Washington) police officer were dropped Monday when prosecutors stated that he did not commit the crimes he was arrested for, which were part of a “sophisticated ruse” put forth by the accuser.

KIRO Radio’s Hanna Scott reports that the King County Prosecutor’s Office is dropping charges against John Kivlin, and is not pursuing rape charges against another Bellevue cop Richard Newell.

According to court documents the accuser “fabricated evidence and used a sophisticated ruse to deceive Kivlin, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the court in order to have Kivlin taken into custody and charged with additional crimes. The result of the (accuser’s) fabrication was that law enforcement arrested Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, prosecutors filed charges against Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, and the court held Kivlin in custody for order violations which he did not commit.”

Kivlin was arrested in April and accused of assaulting his girlfriend twice. The two reportedly met on Craigslist and began a relationship in 2015. But the woman began making allegations against Kivlin and other Bellevue police officers in 2018. After Kivlin was arrested and released for the assault allegations, he reportedly contacted the woman in violation of a court order in July. He was then charged with witness tampering.

Kivlin was arrested again for contacting the woman in August. But prosecutors say the woman making the allegations was lying this time. After inspecting Kivlin’s phone and billing records, it appears that the woman got Kivlin to text with her using a fake name in August.

Prosecutor’s add that she admitted that rape allegations she previously made in 2009 and 2010 were also false.

Prosecutors said that they are not pursuing previous charges in light of the recent developments and the accuser’s lack of credibility.

The case has also wrapped up Bellevue Police Chief Steve Mylett in allegations. Those allegations are under investigation by the Bothell Police Department and have not been made public. Mylett has been placed on leave. Despite not initially knowing the nature of the allegations, the chief denied them.

The woman who waged allegations against Kivlin and Chief Mylett also accused another Bellevue officer, Richard Newell. No charges were filed against him. He has also resigned from the police department.

DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

#BelieveWomen? Pennsylvania girls who falsely accused boy of sexual assault will not be punished, parents of boy sue

From TribLive: The Seneca Valley School District on Monday defended its handling of two sexual assault complaints brought against a male student by five “mean girls” that later reportedly turned out to be false.

The boy’s parents filed a civil lawsuit against the girls and school district in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh last week.

In a four-paragraph statement released by the Butler County district, school officials defended their actions and said they believe “the lawsuit is without merit.”

“We have followed all applicable laws, and we will vigorously defend ourselves throughout the process,” the district said in response to repeated requests by the Tribune-Review to respond to the lawsuit.

The parents, Michael J. and Alecia Flood of Zelienople, claim their son, only identified as T.F., “was forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, the loss of his liberty and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false last summer.

The boy is being home-schooled due to the bullying he suffered by classmates following the allegations, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges the boy was further damaged from “gender bias” by school officials and Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger’s office, which even after learning the girls’ accusations were false “did not take any action against the females involved,” said attorney Craig Fishman of Pittsburgh, who represents the Floods.

The phrase “Mean Girls,” used in the lawsuit by Fishman, references the 2004 movie of the same name.

The movie details the buds and thorns of the high school experience — deep friendships and happy memories along with painful bullying and gossip that could have a lasting impact.

In the prepared statement released by the district’s media support specialist, Katherine Huttinger, the school district maintained “safety” is its priority.

“The number-one priority of the Seneca Valley School District is the safety and well-being of our students, staff, parents and volunteers who enter our buildings. We have policies and procedures in place to protect individuals, and we communicate to all employees on these policies and work hard every day to provide a safe and caring learning environment for all,” the statement said.

The school district noted it still has not been served with the lawsuit.

“Because this situation involves a lawsuit and ongoing litigation, and also because of federal privacy laws protecting student information, the school district cannot comment further on the details of the lawsuit or the situation,” the statement concluded.

The Floods seek unspecified civil damages against the girls’ parents, the school district and Goldinger’s office.

h/t Twitchy

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Steven Crowder back on Texas Christian University campus, counseling now available for triggered snowflakes

On October 2 Steven Crowder posted the above video. Crowder went to Texas Christian University (TCU) and set up his “Change My Mind” table. The goal was to have students discuss the myth of rape culture with him and convince him that “rape culture” does exist in this country.

The video is long yet offers a glimpse into the mindset of college students today. Some of my favorite statements from these young skulls of mush:

  • “I’m honestly not talking about empirical data at all, and I don’t think we should look at it. Empirical data is bullsh*t.
  • “I usually believe the woman until proven otherwise.” (Said by a male student who doesn’t believe that’s how our laws should work but we should believe her for the “most part.”)
  • Crowder later accuses said male student of an act and the male student says, “Where’s your evidence? Crowder: “Why does that matter?” Male student: “You have to have evidence.”
  • Later in this exchange Crowder tells male student:“You did say believe the women until otherwise.” The male student says you need to “disprove” the accusation.
  • Crowder explains due process. The male student then says, “I think I might have misspoken.”
  • Crowder has another discussion with a different male student who really doesn’t want to discuss rape culture. He would rather discuss the method of dialogue that Crowder chose.
  • This male student has a hard time “articulating” rape culture because it’s very complicated.
  • Crowder tries to get him to explain the nuances of rape culture and this male student eventually says,“I’m not going to be able to articulate it, I don’t have any facts, I don’t have figures, I don’t have anything.”
  • The male student later says, “My point was, I really didn’t want to talk about rape culture, because I’m not prepared, I don’t know what to say about it. I don’t know how to articulate that I think it’s an issue. I don’t even know how to tell you I came to think it’s an issue. It’s just something I learned along the way.

Keep in mind that these students voluntarily sat down with Crowder for a conversation. They made that choice.

Yet because of Crowder’s mere presence, the kids now might require counseling. TCU tweeted the following:

  • “Today, Steven Crowder chose to challenge our students on a public sidewalk in front of the university. While the Constitution gives him the right to express his views, the sentiments he expressed do not align with TCU’s values.”
  • His views adversely affected many members of our campus community. The health and safety of the Horned Frog Family is of utmost importance and we encourage individuals to contact campus resources for support. https://counseling.tcu.edu  https://titleix.tcu.edu/  https://campuslife.tcu.edu

Oh you precious snowflakes. It’s pathetic that TCU thinks students need counseling services over someone setting up a table asking for a discussion.

Think about this: These kids now might need counseling because they heard an opinion that’s different from theirs.

After watching this video, I think many can agree that the government indoctrination system has been a success.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

People are using an app to report sexual assault anonymously

JDoe app

What could possibly go wrong?

Seems to me that due process is becoming a thing of the past in this #MeToo era.

From NY Post: In the wake of #MeToo, more than 1,000 people have downloaded an app aimed at rooting out repeat sex offenders by allowing victims and witnesses to report the crimes anonymously and join forces against the sickos.

Called JDoe, the free app launched on the Apple and Android app store in April. It works by prompting users to report when and where an incident took place, along with the name of the perpetrator and any details of the crime.

The information is then stored in an encrypted database. Users cannot see the names of other victims or of perpetrators, but the app’s algorithm scans for patterns. If a repeat offender turns up, accusers receive separate notifications along with information on pursuing joint legal action through JDoe’s network of attorneys, if they desire.

There’s no need to wait for other victims to surface, however. JDoe also provides a way for users to anonymously report individual incidents to police or legal services providers.

In either scenario, the accused are not notified through the app that they have been reported.

Company founder and CEO Ryan Soscia, 24, says he began developing JDoe in 2015, shortly after learning that a group of teammates and friends had been assaulted by the same trainer.

“What we [at JDoe] really try to focus on is enabling people to pursue justice together,” Soscia tells The Post. “We’re trying to democratize legal services.”

He describes the app’s identity encryption as something “Edward Snowden would approve of.”

As the app’s user base grows, Soscia plans to develop a map feature that visually displays incident reports. His team is also working on a feature that will alert users if they enter an area with multiple incident reports.

In addition, Soscia plans to grow the app’s survivor-support services such as referrals for mental health care providers. “We’re looking to provide almost a Yelp-like service,” he says.

“There’s power in realizing you’re not alone,” he says. “And that could be powerful throughput for the justice system.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington – Watch Live

mr-smith-goes-to-washington-1
Remember Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is doing the same thing RIGHT NOW on the Senate floor.

Rand Paul
Sen. Paul is filibustering the POS regime’s appointment of John Brennan as CIA Director because the administration won’t disavow drone killing American citizens on US soil without due process. In fact, the POS’s attorney general Eric Holder three-times refused to answer the question whether it is constitutional for the the United States to use a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil, even if said citizen does not pose an “imminent [national security] threat”.
This is unconstitutional and Sen. Paul said he’s had a enough of unconstitutional actions by this regime and will talk until he can’t do it any more.
Sen. Paul is getting great support from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Will any other senators step in when Paul has to quit? Flood your senators’ phone lines with that question.
This is democracy in action, folks!
Sen. Paul and other supporting speakers are also using this occasion to give the American people an excellent crash course on the threats posed to our liberty by the Obama regime’s drones, as well as the fundamentals of the U.S. government as designed by our Founding Fathers — separation of powers into three co-equal branches, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (especially the Fourth Amendment), and the importance of due process.
Read more in the Washington Times.
Watch Senator Paul live on CSPAN here.
H/t my friend Robert K. Wilcox
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Indiana Becomes a Police State: Supreme Court Overrules 4th Amendment

Indiana state flag


A man’s castle is no longer his own.
Once upon a time, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
The 4th Amendment was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 4th Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Alas, all that is no more.
The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana just ruled that it is unlawful for you to resist an unlawful entry into your home.
Dan Carden reports for NWI.com, “Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home,” May 13, 2011:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning 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.

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.

For the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in pdf, click here.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David


Justice Steven David, who wrote the majority opinion, was a military lawyer and colonel in the US Army.
H/t beloved fellow Will.
~Eowyn
Please follow and like us:
0