Indiana Appeals Court applies Castle Doctrine to unlawful police entry

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
10,330
Likes
1,944
Location
Taxachusetts
From here a clip:
"And we hold that, on the facts of this case, Cupello exercised reasonable force under Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2(i)(2) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by a public servant into his home. Thus, we reverse Cupello’s conviction."

Full decision: PDF
 
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,835
Likes
369
Location
Free
This is good, I didn't know about this until reading the decision. Thanks for sharing that.

From the decision and to summarize, the officer self induced injury by illegally entering the premise of the apartment. If he never put his foot in the doorway, when Cupello slammed the door the officer would not have been hurt. He also never got a warrant to remove Cupello from the apartment.

My thoughts
Maybe the police will learn from this [thinking]
This won't do anything to prevent no-knocks and other thuggery at the whim of someones false discretion.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
4,243
Likes
741
Location
North shore, MA
It'll just encourage the cops to conduct more no-knock raids at 3am when their [STRIKE=Victims]victims[/STRIKE] suspects are sleeping. Good for this guy for getting off and surviving the ordeal. Time for him to move far, far, far away. Like Alaska. The back country. In a cabin with no address.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
19,473
Likes
16,728
Location
Southern NH
Read lines 34-36 of the decision.

It is good to read a court decision in which logic and real common sense is applied, and where that it also doesn't blindly give the benefit of the doubt to the government, but rather it gives it to the people, in the interest of upholding rights and not rights violations.

Given the undisputed evidence, the State attempts, as it did at trial, to negate Cupello’s affirmative defense by arguing that the evidence supports an inference that Cupello consented to Constable Webb’s entry into his home. Despite the fact that Cupello testified that he did not give Constable Webb permission to enter his home, the trial court accepted the State’s argument, finding that Cupello acquiesced in Constable Webb’s entry by having a conversation with Constable Webb at the threshold of his apartment. But we reject the notion that a conversation held at the threshold of one’s home is, in itself, an invitation for a law enforcement officer to enter the home. To the contrary, as our supreme court has succinctly stated:

Opening the door to ascertain the purpose of an interruption to the private enjoyment of the home is not an invitation to enter, but rather is a common courtesy of civilized society. Attendant to this courtesy is the ability to exclude those who are knocking and preserve the integrity of the physical boundaries of the home.
Cox v. State, 696 N.E.2d 853, 858 (Ind. 1998).

Had Cupello wished to invite Constable Webb into his home, he would have made that invitation explicit, and Constable Webb would not have needed to place his foot in the threshold surreptitiously. The conversation at the door provided neither consent nor acquiescence to Constable Webb’s entry.

Nevertheless, the State argues that, under Indiana Code Section 35-41-3-2(j)(4), Cupello lacked justification to use force because he had a reasonable belief that Constable Webb was acting lawfully or engaged in the lawful execution of his duties. But we have already established that Constable Webb acted unlawfully
when he breached the threshold of Cupello’s dwelling. See, e.g., Adkisson, 728 N.E.2d at 177 (holding that the unlawful entry into a private dwelling is not a lawful execution of an officer’s duties). Therefore, we reject the State’s argument.

Finally, the State argues that, because Cupello did not know Constable Webb had placed his foot inside Cupello’s apartment, Cupello could not have had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent or terminate Constable Webb’s entry. We cannot agree. Cupello merely attempted to end the conversation with Constable Webb by closing the door. However, when he tried to close the door, he discovered that Constable Webb had obstructed the path of the door with his foot and that the door would not close. At this point, Constable Webb’s foot became stuck, and he began to resist the door. Thus, Cupello began to struggle against Constable Webb, and Cupello slammed the door two more times, harder than in his first attempt. In other words, Cupello discovered Constable Webb’s unlawful entry when he first attempted to close the door and, after two more attempts, was able to terminate the unlawful entry into his dwelling. Constable Webb had entered Cupello’s apartment without consent, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or exigent circumstances. Because Constable Webb resisted Cupello’s subsequent attempts to close the door, Cupello had a reasonable belief that force was necessary to terminate Constable Webb’s unlawful entry into his apartment.
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
4,842
Likes
2,701
Read lines 34-36 of the decision.

It is good to read a court decision in which logic and real common sense is applied, and where that it also doesn't blindly give the benefit of the doubt to the government, but rather it gives it to the people, in the interest of upholding rights and not rights violations.

No need to open the door. Just get a cheap wireless camera and see who it is with your phone.

It's a little concerning that the decision justifies anything because it is "common", since the grabbers are always referring to "common sense".
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
2,124
Likes
765
Need a fine edge on that door so that constable webb doesn't have the opportunity in the future to make an unlawful entry. At least with that foot.
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
19,473
Likes
16,728
Location
Southern NH
No need to open the door. Just get a cheap wireless camera and see who it is with your phone.

It's a little concerning that the decision justifies anything because it is "common", since the grabbers are always referring to "common sense".

I qualified 'common sense' with 'real' to indicate the use of the term based on its actual meaning of "sound judgment" and not the fake changed meaning it has morphed into by those with agendas.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,008
Likes
670
Location
Near Worcester
Opening the door to ascertain the purpose of an interruption to the private enjoyment of the home is not an invitation to enter, but rather is a common courtesy of civilized society. Attendant to this courtesy is the ability to exclude those who are knocking and preserve the integrity of the physical boundaries of the home.


wow..

WOW...

So far the score is Jackboots: 9000, Freedom: 1.
 
Top Bottom