I have been following this thread from the beginning and it has been quite a lively debate, one not expected when I log on to learn about S&W firearms!

It seems the main question is - what can an ordinary citizen do when they believe the police have done something illegal, like make an entry into a private home. I just wonder how that determination can be made by an ordinary citizen in the heat of the moment? It sometimes takes Courts years to make a final determination after review by Judges and attorneys for both sides. How does the ordinary citizen make that determination in a few minutes?

Some posters have commented that disadvantaged people may not be in a position to challenge illegal actions by the police because they could not afford an attorney. Many of the landmark cases that govern police conduct, such as Miranda, Conner, Garner, and others involved defendants who were indigent. Civil Rights suits are very profitable for plaintiffs and their attorneys looking to dig into the deep pockets of the Government. There will be no shortage of representation available to anyone with an allegation of police violations of Civil Rights. They will be beating attorneys away with a stick.

In my experience, with over 31 years as a LEO and a supervisor for 21 of those years, I've had civil liability beat into my head. Especially as a supervisor, I do not want to be vicariously liable for actions of my subordinates. So it is my job to police the police. At least in my agency continuous training, legal updates and monitoring of our own actions is on-going. No one wants to be sued or be responsible for a suit against the agency, the City and all of your supervisors up the chain to the Chief and the Mayor. We track use of force and review those actions to determine if any officers have an inordinate amount of use of force issues, or potential excessive force concerns. If we see a problem trend, we take proactive measures.

To read some of the posts, it seems many think that officers may consider violating Civil Rights at random, maybe just to amuse themselves. I am not saying that is impossible, I have never seen it happen in my area of the State. If it happened here an internal investigation would begin immediately. If an investigation determined that a civil rights violation occurred, termination of the officer's employment would be the goal.

We had a case a few years ago where a drug dealer parked in a high drug area and delivered narcotics. When he left a traffic stop was conducted just across the street from the boundary of the city limits. The stop was based on the totality of the circumstances and the officers could articulate reasonable suspicion. But, there was no underlying traffic violation.

During the traffic stop, the driver suddenly accelerated and fled from the area. He crashed about a mile later and ran on foot, but was apprehended. On his person and in the car was a large quantity of heroin and crack cocaine and a loaded pistol. Due to his extensive history, the gun and quantity of drugs the case was indicted in Federal Court.

His attorney, in a suppression hearing in the Northern District of Ohio, argued that the traffic stop was illegal and hence, evidence seized afterward was inadmissible.

Despite a mountain of testimony of how the reasonable suspicion was reached, the Judge ruled the stop invalid. However, he also ruled, the defendant had no right to flee from the stop and in doing so he created another emergency that the police had a duty to respond to and thus, the evidence could be admitted. (I think the Judge split the baby here). He plead out to 20 years Fed time - 18 months after the arrest. I think the analogy here is that while he felt the police actions were improper at the stop, he had no right to flee from their detention. I am sure he was not thinking that at the time, but after talking it over with his attorney he agreed that it wasn't the gun and the drugs that caused him to flee, it was the illegal traffic stop, of course!

I prefer the calm, logical review of police actions by the Courts as opposed to snap-review by a person who may have beaten his wife after possibly consuming a 12 pack.

__________________
Tony

This is going to sound almost like a fairy tale. I knew this charactor about 35 years ago in california. He was a big redneck type, into martial arts, and a drinker. I heard the story about him before I got to know him and out of respect or whatever never questioned him about it when I got to know him better. Wish I had.
Two deputys or chp`s, I dont know which, had pulled him over for something. Supposedly he took umberance at the way they were treating him and he disarmed both, cuffed them with their own cuffs, drove them back in the squad car to the station and turned himself in!
I dont know how much if any time he got, but I heard the same story several times from others. Knowing the guy latter I tended to belive it.

ViceUnit: Thanks for the contribution. I think your example of the narcotics arrest is fascinating. Although I'm an attorney by trade, criminal law is far from my area of practice. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the study of Criminal Procedure, and it's an area of the law that is still of much interest to me. Hence, why I started and continue to discuss this thread. Criminal Procedure (like many areas of the law) is the examination of minute facts and split-second decisions. This examination takes place over weeks and months by lawyers, judges, and jurors--none of whom were there to see or experience the event.

The one thing in your post that I would comment on is the idea that a citizen cannot judge in the moment what is or is not lawful.

As you point out, police receive extensive training on the constitutional boundaries of the citizens they interact with. The average citizen does not have that training, but in many cases they may still be able to know what is or is not lawful. Most citizens know whether or not they have committed a crime or may otherwise be the subject of lawful arrest. Most citizens are aware if there is a reason for police to be forcing entry into their homes. If there is no reasonable justification to be arrested, or for the police to be forcing entry, a citizen has a right to resist the unlawful action. The police may or may not knowingly be acting unlawfully. That is not the citizen's concern. The citizen's concern is the safety, sanctity and well being of his person, property and family.

What I'm trying to say is that police make instantaneous judgement on a frequent basis regarding the lawfulness of their own actions given the circumstances at hand and based on their training. The average citizen receives far less training, but it is not fair to say that they are incapable in all cases of discerning lawful from unlawful for that reason.

Thank God for lawyers, looks like one from our state is going to push this to the USSC. IMHO the Indiana SC.was too broad in the ruling and i think it needs more clarification. Yes it's a bad idea to resist and but in the dead of night when you are awakened from a deep sleep to your door being kicked in and you point a firearm at the intruder and shoot do you know its a police invasion or a gang ? This happened in South Bend IN.,gang bangers brake into home yelling Police Raid

I am still not sure after reading this thread (and commenting) what some folks want to do. Some seem hell bent on "fighting." Again, that's a bad idea.

Having been part of many, many entries of residences...both with and w/o a warrant...I can tell you that my presence there was not to harm the occupant(s), plant evidence, steal your stuff, or bust up your home for no reason.

And I can assure you that on every entry team (it is extraordinarily rare to do it solo) there is at least one LEO assigned to handle those who object to the entry. Never had a team member get more than just a little banged up but some citizens weren't quite as fortunate. (As an aside, getting "banged up" is part of the job, IMHO; in the jursidictions wherein I worked you wouldn't dare take an APO to the prosecutor unless you made a hospital visit yourself.)

As the majority (I surely hope!) have stated, let the cops in and deal with it later if you have a problem(s) with their job performance. It is best for you NOT to resist...ever.

Also, if a LEO tells you to get out of your vehicle you should do so, forthwith. In my personal experiences those directed to do so always did...whether they did it when requested or with assistance was their decision.

Be safe.

I got involved many years ago on a call that I still dont know if I was in the right or wrong on but I never was called down on it either.
I was a new guard for lockheed in 1965 at burbank. Lockheed was on part of the field at LAT burbank california. Our desk man radioed me to check out a report of a kid climbing around some planes in our high security area. I spotted the kid climbing up in a old DC-3 with foreign markings. I climbed up the ladder after him. It was "problematic" if that was our area or not. I belive the pilot had parked in our area by honest mistake. I was greeted by what looked like a bolivian general or something. This guy couldnt speak english and it looked like a bodyguard/gunman with him dressed in a suit.
I dont think either was the pilot as I belive you need to know some english to fly in this country. The plane had strictly cargo. They both looked like they wanted to cut my throat, but somehow the "general" indicated the kid was his. Sometimes we just have to "wing it"!
Somehow I felt this high ranking general had the power to have me exicuted were this his country and really was struggeling to deal with a peon like me in ours! The plaincloths guy was the picture of a assassin gunman bodyguard type begging for the generals permission to bump me off!

I can only agree with you in an instance where an officer is so grossly negligent and commits an overt act that is so blatently unlawful and way outside the norm. But, I think you will still get tased.

However, most situations require careful analysis when officers, acting in good faith, may do something procedurally incorrect. If they break your door down with a search warrant, but have the wrong address, sit tight - you have a fat settlement coming. Don't screw that up by trying to resist the SWAT team, you have a new (insert: BMW, boat, motorcycle, etc) coming, you don't want a hospital visit, or worse along with that.

A lay person may be able to discern illegal police procedure, but it would be faulty to advise anyone to react on that instantaneous judgement in a negative fashion. Complain that you want to talk to a superior officer in charge, but advocating resistance is irresponsible. People are gonna get hurt. Putting your hand up as a stop signal in your example about refusing police entry without touching an officer is one thing, putting your hand into an officers chest is likely to escalate matters.

__________________
Tony

It's ironic that the ISC would make this ruling on a case that didn't really involve an illegal entry by the police. The wife's 911 call, the obvious anger and hostility of the shouting husband, and the wife saying "let them in" or words to that effect combined to make their entry legal under the exigent circumstance provision. The majority opinion seems to imply that the justices had the same reading (page 5 of the opinion). I have no problem with them upholding the guy's conviction.

I have to agree with the dissenting opinion, however, that the majority opinion was written with too broad a brush. I doubt whether that element of the opinion will survive higher court scrutiny when the case goes up the ladder.

I live on the other side of the bridge from you. Lakewood isn't Chicago or Philadelphia.

It's pretty easy to tell when the police are doing something they shouldn't be doing, like kidnapping children, stealing things and disabling security cameras so there's no record of what they're doing.

I've never heard the Lakewood PD referred to as common criminals. But then I've never heard of a home invasion ring operating inside of the Lakewood PD, or of the Lakewood PD robbing immigrant owned convenience stores. I can't say the same of the Chicago and Philly PDs.

Cops in smaller cities and small towns, generally have no idea of what their big city bretheren are truly capable. It includes everything from drug trafficking to contract murder.

I'm glad that the Lakewood and Rocky River Police Departments don't appear to do these kinds of things. I can't lie to myself and pretend that the Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta and New Orleans PDs don't. Nor can I pretend that there isn't widespread support for the perpetrators among the rank and file of those agencies.

The documented activities of some LEOs makes it not in my interest to trust LEOs I don't know. You can consider that unfortunate, but my trusting in the integrity of the wrong cop would be MUCH more unfortunate for me.

I agree Mas. Seems to be a knee jerk reaction.

We'll see how it goes from here.

Your all wrong!!!

Here's the problem:

PEOPLE WATCH TOO MUCH TV AND BELIEVE WHAT THEY SEE!!

I agree. People in other areas do not know what was done in New Orleans that made the police department look bad. Yes there were some bad cops but there was a lot of crime against police that was hidden by the community and then twisted to make the police look worse.

Fire at a police officer and get shot. Your gun will disappear in the community mob before the police can reach your body. There are officers here that will undersand what I am saying but to the media watchers, the cops were bad.

I'm pretty open to believing what a cop confesses to prior to sentencing.

I'm not sure what a police department could do to make its personnel commissioning a contract murder look GOOD...

depends on who
if it were a cops bullet behind the ear of Jeffery Damhmer .. I think a parade would have been in order.
this, however walks away from the essence of the thread which is the right to resist an unlawful entry by law enforcement.
The case at hand looks to be a hot head attempting to protest his way out of paying his dues.
I think a case of a botched no knock warrant where a resident resisted and fought a perceived home invasion would make a better case to debate. this isnt such a case so I'll just kick back and watch the show.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

I think you're spot on that resisting arrest, or police entry into your home, in a physical manner is almost universally a bad idea. However, it is two different things to say that something is a bad idea, and to say that it is unconstitutional. Is putting a hand on a police officer almost always a bad idea? Yeah, probably. Does that mean I have no constitutional right to do so when I am in the right? Of course not. The court in this case appears to hold that there is no constitutional right to physically resist unlawful police entry into your home. That is a mistaken ruling, in my opinion.

Secondly, a word about police restraint. I have a great deal of sympathy for good police officers. As I've said before, I consider myself lucky to have a few police among my very best friends. Now, that being said, there are bad cops out there too. One of the worst things a police officer can do is fail to show restraint. I'm sure it's the hardest thing in the world to demonstrate restraint in the presence of some a-hole who is screaming in your face. But police need to be the "bigger person" in any situation, and if a person cannot restrain him or herself when appropriate, they shouldn't wear a badge or be granted the power that goes with it.

There was an excellent example of a failure of police restraint in the news just recently. This concerned a citizen's right to carry a pistol.

When a police officer cannot restrain himself, it makes all police look bad. And it contributes to mistrust by the public against all police. Which is a shame, because the majority of police aren't bullies or racists, or criminals. They're hard working men and women who genuinely care about their communities and keeping citizens safe.

If a citizen places his hand on an officer (not a shove, just his hand to say stop) to keep the officer out of his house after he's asked that the cop stay out, it is up to the officer to determine in his professional opinion and based on all the facts at hand, whether or not to back off and wait outside the threshold and observe, or to escalate the situation.

So? Who is going to win American Idol this year?

You do not have to "pretend" there isn't widespread support for the perpetrators among the rank and file. It is a reality that there is no support from cops for criminals who happen to have a badge. Most of us would like to deal out the punishment ourselves and have no tolerance for cops who commit crimes. Especially crimes of the nature you mention.

I could easily say the documented activities of some Army vets (just an example, don't flame out on me guys) makes it not in my interest to trust any Army vets I don't know. You may consider that unfortunate, but my trusting in the integrity of the wrong Army vet would be MUCH more unfortunate for me

1. You don't HAVE to deal with "Army vets" on THEIR terms, nor can Army vets lawfully (or now in Indiana UNlawfully) force their way into your home at gunpoint. You have no legal duty to stop at the command of an Army vet, on the street or the road.
2. The cur who stomped the barmaid in Chicago was the beneficiary of multiple very public displays of deference and support by his fellow officers. They leaped to his defense on numerous discussion forums and newspaper comment sections. The almost UNIVERSAL reaction of his contemporaries was NOT that the BEATING was wrong, but that showing it on TV and the internet "too much" was wrong.

It's one thing to say YOU wouldn't do that. It's quite another to say nobody else HAS. The facts are against you.

Some time it is best to confess or offer a guilty plea than to fight and lose. This is not to say that it is the case in 100% of the cases but it happens.

I can take you to one area close to here where your life as an officer is not worth a nickel. You can be shot at and when you shoot the assailant, there will be 100 witnesses saying the person you shot was not armed and you just began shooting. I have seen cases where the witnesses denied the accuracy of a dash cam video.

But if you're going to take that attitude in the case of the cops that murdered Kathryn Johnston, why should you not take it in the case of any generic lowlife who shoots a cop?

There's NO serious doubt about what the Atlanta PD did in this case.

But I am not familar with that case and only know the little that has been referred to it on here. No background, no facts or history whatsoever.

I will be talking to some relatives in Atlanta this week and will see what they know of the incident.

While we agree on the three nos.... I gotta say that I'll probably never get my head wrapped around the notion of a right to raise my hand against the police (absent the right to self defense which applies to all situations).

The judgments I feel confident in making at the scene are understanding the difference between requests such as 'May I come inside?' or 'May I search your car?', to that of an instruction "Get down on the ground" or "Get out of the car".
Requests like the above will get a "No". Orders always get a "Yes Sir" and comply.

I live next door to one of Chattanooga's finest. As you can imagine I hear lots of stories, some dealing with physical resistance. Never heard a story where someone began physical resistance and he 'backs off' to consult with the person whether he's acting legally to determine whether he should proceed or not . When he backs off it's usually a couple steps back to unholster his taser.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the diverse opinion in this thread.

Ditto. Thank you for sharing yours.

I think the difference is between something being a good idea and being legal to do. There are plenty of things that are very bad ideas, but not against the law. That, I think, is what most of the people who disagree with this ruling believe. Not that they think resistance is good, but that it is a Constitutional right (to be stupid perhaps, but a right nonetheless).

I have also enjoyed reading the diverse opinions. Thanks to everyone for keeping it civilized.

__________________
"... shall not be infringed."

upon escalation to physical force it is never in the officers interest to back down. its the point of no return. The second anyone stands down all effective options are not only forfeit, but entirely handed over to the adversary.

I think I see what the OP is trying to illustrate here and I think he refers to the unavoidable bad cops who tend to hit the streets itching to put their force on force training to real world work. Having seen a large concentration of them growing up, you cant tell me they dont exist. the type tends to disregard all instruction from de-escalation training just to see someone twitch from riding the tazer lightning.

resisting such an officer, remains every bit as illegal as resisting the fine upstanding officers I am proud to know here. Morally Im sure resistance in such cases would garner some support. However there is and shall always remain, a division between what is legal and what is moral, as the two do not coincide in every instance.

__________________
it just needs more voltage

A friend once provided me with a good illustration of police discretion and backing down.

He (or a co-worker, I forget which) was in pursuit of a suspect's vehicle. The suspect refused to pull over his car in response to an attempted traffic stop. As the pursuit went on, the speeds increased higher and higher, and the suspect's driving became more reckless. The officer in pursuit recognized that the suspect was veering the chase towards a suburban area and that based on the time of day, school children would be out and about on their way home from school.

So the cop did the right thing and broke off the chase. He had the guy's license plate, and could locate the car later. Although the adrenaline was pumping, and his instincts were to ram this clown off the road and cuff him in an uncomfortable manner, his better judgment and training won out. De-escalation may have been against the cop's sense of pride, but thankfully his professionalism was a stronger instinct.

If I was a parent of one of those school kids, I would buy that cop a beer any time.

but not on duty before a chase

__________________
it just needs more voltage

Admittedly, I am unaware of the Barmaid incident. Your description of the perpetrator as a "cur" is probably spot on. I feel the "UNIVERSAL" reaction you mention was probably from a vocal minority. This is normally the case with any crime that attracts the public interest. The facts as you state them in this forum may be against me, but that does not make them true. You facts for example, how many cops supported this guy, how many though he should be strung up? Do you know? I don't.

As far as the constant viewing on the internet and TV, at some point it becomes nothing more then sensationalism and inflammatory. This serves no one.

My point on the "Army vet" example is this, because of the bad deeds of a few I am not going to quit trusting the majority who have and continue to serve others. (BTW, you can replace Army with Navy, Coast Guard or Jarhead if you like). It is usually a bad idea to paint a picture with such broad brush strokes.

If LEO's show up at my house and demand entry, I will open the door to avoid it being damaged. I will address all other issues in court at a later date.

Unfortunately, reasonable suspicion is now on somewhat thinner ice than it used to be - see The Supreme Court's Stinky Ruling on Marijuana Odor: What Does it Really Mean? | How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

You're one of probably eleven people who haven't seen video of the barmaid getting stomped. Google "Abbate video".

Virtually EVERY comment I've seen by Chicago cops on the beating has been prefaced by a half-hearted, pro-forma condemnation of the act, followed by prolonged (and sometimes hysterical) condemnations of the video being shown "too much". Of course AT ALL is "too much" to them. The number of comments I've seen which demonstrate REAL animosity toward the perpetrator are VASTLY outnumbered by excuses for him, and worse, attacks on the victim. This could very well be a specifically Chicago PD thing, as it betrays a depth of misogyny that I haven't seen from other cops, even other cops who try to justify criminal behavior by police.

My point regarding the police versus military veterans is that unlike military veterans, police have very real power over the lives of average citizens. If a guy wearing a 1st Cav t-shirt kicks in my door at 3:00am, he's getting shot and nobody will bat an eye. If a cop does the same thing with no more legal basis, or even with manifest felonious intent and I shoot him, somehow I'm the villain.

If the police want entry to my home without a warrant, they're going to have to break down the door and they're going to do it while being recorded. I don't do or have anything that merits such behavior on their part. I won't physically resist, but from then on it's a Sicilian style blood feud in the civil courts and the internet with no end in sight.