Can Premises Be Searched After the Service of an Arrest Warrant

[jk]

The common law has held since before the 19th century the citizens can resist unlawful arrest, .

Hmm, seems there is a court in Indiana (Crown Point if I remember correctly) that disagrees with this statement.

[cdwjava]

The common law has held since before the 19th century the citizens can resist unlawful arrest, and there have been many police officers killed as a result.

And many, many more resisting parties that believed they had the right to resist when, in most cases, they did not.

Of course, my state is explicitly NOT a "common law" state.

If you can handle the illegal actions in court, that is great and I agree the best action to take, but many people never have that opportunity as they are beaten or killed on the spot. Sometimes it is necessary to hold court on the street.

A profoundly DUMB idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, seems there is a court in Indiana (Crown Point if I remember correctly) that disagrees with this statement.

And the legislature in that state corrected it by effectively greenlighting cops there if you so much as believe the arrest or action is unlawful in some way. This can very well result in a lot of sovereign rights folks violently resisting. Only time will tell if the details of the law result in increased assaults on officers (and likely the resulting increased injuries or deaths to citizens), or not.

[jk]

And the legislature in that state corrected it by effectively greenlighting cops there if you so much as believe the arrest or action is unlawful in some way. This can very well result in a lot of sovereign rights folks violently resisting. Only time will tell if the details of the law result in increased assaults on officers (and likely the resulting increased injuries or deaths to citizens), or not.

yes but that is now a statutory restriction. II was arguing common law supported his point which, it still doesn't due to that court ruling.

[Insons Insontis]

Gee, I can play the same game and point to articles of the bizarre and unusual, too.

Of course, none of these seem to be cases where officers decided, "What the heck, let me risk prison and the loss of everything I own just to jack with the guy!"

Oh, and superlocking the doors would have done little or nothing in these instances which appear to be mistakes rather than intentional acts.

The bottom line is that the police do not regularly go around forcing their way into people's homes without cause. If you are that paranoid, go ahead and double lock, and super secure your house when you step outside ... hopefully you won't lock yourself out one day. If the police have probable cause and an exigency to enter, they will do so even if you lock it. All you will do is deter the officer who lacked cause and probably wouldn't have entered anyway. The officer WITH cause and an exigency will simply be annoyed that he will have to break the door, adn the officer with probable cause and no exigency will seek a warrant.

I don't like to live paranoid ... but, to each his own.

I never said the lock would prevent anyone that was going to enter anyway; I said it was better than having no lock at all, as it would be a deterrent to an otherwise "rogue" officer who could simply walk in without any trouble. Who cares about the cops being annoyed? If they get a warrant, than you might as well give them the code and save yourself the cost of a new door, unless you really think they have no justification, as judges makes mistakes too.

I didn't post those incidents as a rebuttal to, "what the heck, let me risk prison and the loss of everything I own just to jack with the guy", nor was it intended to get you upset and defensive. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to your statement that, "For law abiding folks, simply knowing that you have the right to refuse consent, the right to not make any statements or answer questions, etc., is going to be sufficient to protect you from any overzealous authorities who might try to overstep their legal limitations."

With that said, a quick Google search yields over 1.6 million results when you type in "botch police raid". I think in order to call this rare, there would not be over 1.6 million pages dedicated to it, nor would the SCOTUS have to address it, nor would criminologists at every university be studying it. I don't agree that these are "bizarre and unusual", and neither do the criminologists and researchers at the Cato institute or most citizens. I don't think all cops are bad, but I do think the good ones are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

"A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on." - William S. Burroughs

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
An interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids, released in conjunction with the Cato policy paper.

We shouldn't leave our friends across the pond out of this count either, but because they are so far away, I will just post 1 example of this happening to the wrong family, at the wrong house, 41 different times. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ng-home-117487
I would think after the 35th or 36th time they might have made a sticky note, but that's just me.

- - - Updated - - -

A profoundly DUMB idea.

And if I were a police officer (like you), I might agree with you as well. However, there are many people who would not be alive if they did not stand up for their liberties, and many of them are not alive because they did not have the ability; nor would the United States exist. It might be dumb to you, but the founding fathers didn't think it was dumb, nor did Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, or the Supreme Court of the United States in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 52.

Neither did these other courts:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

Nor did US Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story:

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.)

I think those are people I feel comfortable with stating are certainly not dumb, and I am happy to claim in my camp. Who can you claim in yours?

- - - Updated - - -

yes but that is now a statutory restriction. II was arguing common law supported his point which, it still doesn't due to that court ruling.

Agreed, but a statutory restriction that defies over 150 years of jurisprudence; and is exactly what Justice Story addresses in his comments, as well as a little known man by the name of Thomas Paine. Just because a majority decides to pass a law, doesn't make it legal or just. In my opinion, democracy used under the guises of a legislature who portends to be "protecting" liberty is merely a ruse that has been railed against since 1776. Democracy is not to be lauded; all democracy states is that 51% of the people can piss in the other 49% corn-flakes.

[souperdave]

Hey Isons! What propels you to think that you are in any sorta way qualified to comment/advise on anyone else's predicaments when you couldn't even keep up with your own rampant BS in your own "self defense" case?

You're more than qualified to be a spectator. You are woefully unqualified to be any sort of participant!

[cmre3456]

Be careful of citizens in Oregon, as in most other states. I am unaware if I can't arrest a cop although I'd think more than twice before trying it. I suppose if he made a traffic stop on me and he was stone drunk I might. I'd sure call a different department such as the sheriff or state police for backup though.

ORS 133.225¹
Arrest by private person
(1) A private person may arrest another person for any crime committed in the presence of the private person if the private person has probable cause to believe the arrested person committed the crime. A private person making such an arrest shall, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a magistrate or deliver the arrested person to a peace officer.
(2) In order to make the arrest a private person may use physical force as is justifiable under ORS 161.255 (Use of physical force by private person making citizens arrest). [1973 c.836 §74]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORS 161.255¹
Use of physical force by private person making citizen’s arrest
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the persons own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).
(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORS 164.245¹
Criminal trespass in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.
(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §139; 1999 c.1040 §9])

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFAIK, Oregon is the only state which allows citizens to write traffic tickets, even against a cop. I can ask for a ticket book and write a cop or another citizen a ticket.

LINK

[PTPD22]

LOL.

Holy crap is this thread going off the rails or what? It starts with a fairly simple question about whether a separate search warrant is needed in a certain situation. And progresses so now we have "freedom fighters" talking about citizens arresting and/or killing rogue cops? I guess those dumb a$$ "militia" camps in bum-whop Idaho really do have internet now! Sure, let's have no faith in our court system. If you THINK a cop is overstepping his authority, let's just start shooting! All in the spirit of "our founding fathers" and "Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman,"...who all almost unanimously advocated immediate violent resistance, right?

[cdwjava]

Yeesh!

The ball has bounced over the left field fence and disappeared into the rabbit hole.