MI-Michigan Supreme Court says people can resist police officers who unlawfully your home.

[Anti Federalist]

Man Who Resisted Police Wins Supreme Court Case

April 21, 2012 2:29 PM

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/04/21/man-who-resisted-police-wins-supreme-court-case/

HOLLAND (WWJ/AP) - The Michigan Supreme Court says people can resist police officers who unlawfully enter their homes.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ordered that charges be dropped against Angel Moreno Jr., a western Michigan man who was accused of obstructing officers at his home in Holland. The officers were looking for someone and tried to enter the home without a warrant.

Lower courts had upheld charges of resisting police, based on a 2004 Supreme Court decision, but justices on Friday said that case was wrongly decided.

The opinion was written by Justice Diane Hathaway. She and two other Democrats on the court were joined by two Republican justices, a rare alliance. The dissenters were Republican justices Stephen Markman and Robert Young Jr.

Moreno’s case started on Dec. 30, 2008. Holland police officer Troy DeWys was going to issue a parking ticket for a vehicle belonging to Shane Adams, who had several outstanding warrants.

While he was standing at Adams’ unoccupied car, DeWys noticed a vehicle pulling out of a driveway at a nearby home. The driver allegedly got out of his car and told DeWys that his girlfriend, and some minors, were inside the home drinking alcohol. DeWys asked if Adams was in the house, but the driver indicated that he was unsure.

Court documents show that DeWys then called for backup officers, all of whom arrived in police uniform. They approached the home, knocked on the front and back doors, and identified themselves as police officers. Peering through windows, the officers say they saw about a dozen people running around and hiding.

About 15 minutes later, Mandy McCarry opened the front door. She admitted that under-age drinking was going on in the house and that she knew Adams, but denied that he was in the home. She refused to allow the officers into the house without a warrant.

At this point, the officers secured the back door to the home. When three other officers arrived at the scene, the house was surrounded. DeWys reported that, when standing at the open door, he smelled a strong odor of intoxicants and burnt marijuana.

When DeWys informed McCarry that officers were entering to secure the house while they obtained a search warrant, Angel Moreno Jr. allegedly came to the door and refused to allow the officers to enter, demanding that they get a search warrant first.

According to court documents, Moreno told the officers to get off the porch and attempted to close the door. When an officer placed his shoulder against the door to prevent it from being closed, a struggle ensued between Moreno and the officers.

Moreno was eventually subdued, removed from the home and arrested. Officers then entered the house. After obtaining the search warrant, the officers discovered an ounce of marijuana and some pills.

Moreno was bound over for trial on one charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer, and one charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer causing injury.

Moreno filed a motion to quash based on the illegal entry of officers into the home. The trial court agreed that the officers’ entry into the home was illegal, but denied his motion.

Moreno then sought reconsideration, arguing that he had the right to act in self-defense because the officers used excessive force. The trial court denied that motion.

Moreno said his right of due process was violated by a lack of notice, claiming no reasonable person would have been aware or known they could be charged for defending theirs own home against an aggressive police officer acting without a warrant.

<end>

This was the original story, it lacked information so I posted the other one above.

I'm posting this link, only for the comments, which are worth a read.

Let me get you started:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Man-who-resisted-police-wins-Supreme-Court-case/-/1719418/11359286/-/ufqpin/-/index.html


jmw009

Were the cops looking for a murderer, rapist or armed robber? Would you bleeding hearts say the same thing if the guy had killed someone? Angel Moreno and his buddy are probably both illegal aliens anyway, deport them both. If they're not illegal, deport them anyway, America already has too many mexicans and arabs.



jmw009

Sorry but I don't agree with you or Mark Johnson. If you don't have anything to hide and can actually help law enforcement, why not let them search your house. If you're harboring a killer or hiding drugs, well, I can see why a person wouldn't want the cops searching their house.

[DamianTV]

And in the meantime, while the man fights for his constitutional rights, his life is destroyed by the corrupt authoritarian police departments and courts. Bitter-sweet, but still a step in the right direction. Now, we just have to quit taking several steps backwards for one step forward.

[Bern]

Michigan: 1, Indiana: 0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292646-Indiana-Supreme-Court-No-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home)

[Anti Federalist]

Michigan: 1, Indiana: 0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292646-Indiana-Supreme-Court-No-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home)

Look into that a little more.

IIRC the Indiana legislative passed a law that specifically addressed that ruling, essentially overturning it.

I could be wrong tho'.

Anybody recall that story?

[Bern]

I never saw any follow up to that effect. I'd be very interested to read about it if that happened though.

[Bern]

Aha.. My Google-Fu was adequate:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120322/LOCAL/203220345/Indiana-s-new-right-resist-law-worries-police

[Anti Federalist]

And in the meantime, while the man fights for his constitutional rights, his life is destroyed by the corrupt authoritarian police departments and courts. Bitter-sweet, but still a step in the right direction. Now, we just have to quit taking several steps backwards for one step forward.

Thanks for the title heads up.

That's two that I've fouled up in the last day or two.

And once 20 minutes passes, you can't edit the title anymore.

[angelatc]

Thanks for the title heads up.

That's two that I've fouled up in the last day or two.

And once 20 minutes passes, you can't edit the title anymore.

You can ask a mod to fix it though.

[Pericles]

One ray of sunshine, anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

You can ask a mod to fix it though.

Already got a request in.

;)

But I think everybody understands that should read "unlawfully enter your home".

I was trying to fit the whole headline in and farked it up.

[angelatc]

Already got a request in.

;)

But I think everybody understands that should read "unlawfully enter your home".

I was trying to fit the whole headline in and farked it up.

I read it 4 times and couldn't even see what the problem was. That's how much I knew what you were saying.

After living in Michigan, I've come to the conclusion that Democrats are slightly better with civil rights than Republicans. Not saying they're perfect - Obama alone proves that's wrong, but all in all..... most Michigan cops still can't carry Tazers, but civilians will be if the Governor signs the bill.

And DUI roadblocks are illegal here, which is ironic since it was a Michigan case that caused SCOTUS to say they were not constitutional but they were going to allow it anyway. To keep us safe, you see.

They're iffy on handguns - it's up to the local police department to decide whether to allow it. And they're won't allow tinted front windows on cars, which is silly.

But they're better than Illinois in a lot of ways.

[belian78]

But they're better than Illinois in a lot of ways.

I've no doubt that MI is better than IL, but I just thought this line was funny because, it doesn't take a whole lot to be better than IL these days. LOL

[angelatc]

I've no doubt that MI is better than IL, but I just thought this line was funny because, it doesn't take a whole lot to be better than IL these days. LOL

LOL, yeah, no doubt. But they're the only two overwhelmingly Democratic states I've ever lived in, so that's the only personal observation I can really make.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Aha.. My Google-Fu was adequate:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120322/LOCAL/203220345/Indiana-s-new-right-resist-law-worries-police



"There's an element of society out there that doesn't have a lot of use for the police to begin with," he said.


Ding Ding Ding!!! That might be the smartest cop I've ever heard.


And I'm not sure how much any of this matters. Didn't the US supreme court say that a cop could enter a home if they believed evidence was being destroyed inside? If so, that pretty much makes them legal to enter any home whenever they feel like it. So any resistance will be illegal based on an officers stated opinion, no matter true or not.

[jmdrake]

And when all else false, lock em in the basement. ;)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?372652-90-y-o-lady-locks-cop-in-basement-for-searching-without-a-warrant-gets-settlement.

[TheTexan]

About 15 minutes later, Mandy McCarry opened the front door. She admitted that under-age drinking was going on in the house and that she knew Adams, but denied that he was in the home. She refused to allow the officers into the house without a warrant.

At this point, the officers secured the back door to the home. When three other officers arrived at the scene, the house was surrounded. DeWys reported that, when standing at the open door, he smelled a strong odor of intoxicants and burnt marijuana.

As a corollary to the law of "Never talk to the cops" I would like to propose "Never open the door for cops"


Moreno was eventually subdued, removed from the home and arrested. Officers then entered the house. After obtaining the search warrant, the officers discovered an ounce of marijuana and some pills.

Officers entered the house BEFORE the search warrant but didn't find the marijuana until AFTER they got the search warrant?

ROFLMAOLOLOLLLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Ya I took a shit and then sat down on the toilet, that's how things work in fuckin ASS BACKWARDS LAND

[GuerrillaXXI]

Anyone who's willing to die for his rights -- which is a prerequisite to having practical rights in the first place -- will defend his home to the death against wrongful invaders if he sees fit, regardless of what any court says.

A man can do just about anything he wants to if he's willing to seriously risk or give his life in the process. Penal threats don't work against someone who's more afraid of tyranny than of death (as everyone should be, since death is inevitable but tyranny is not). As the saying goes: "The fear of death is the beginning of slavery."

[coastie]

jmw009

Were the cops looking for a murderer, rapist or armed robber? Would you bleeding hearts say the same thing if the guy had killed someone? Angel Moreno and his buddy are probably both illegal aliens anyway, deport them both. If they're not illegal, deport them anyway, America already has too many mexicans and arabs.
jmw009

Sorry but I don't agree with you or Mark Johnson. If you don't have anything to hide and can actually help law enforcement, why not let them search your house. If you're harboring a killer or hiding drugs, well, I can see why a person wouldn't want the cops searching their house.


You know, if I had no conscious, I'd give this guys address and phone number(already got it, god bless you internet)to his local sheriff's office for growing weed and cooking meth. That's all it takes today anyway, they're not going to bother investigating if it's true or not, this is the time to justify all those kewl weaponz they just got.

Maybe after his dogs are dead and/or his house is burned down and ransacked he'll get it. These people boil my blood with their naivety-do they really think they'll get treated like the cops "buddies" because they're cooperating?

[dannno]

Print this story out, wrap it in plastic, post on your front door for cops who may come to your house for one reason or another to read.

[oyarde]

Michigan: 1, Indiana: 0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?292646-Indiana-Supreme-Court-No-right-to-resist-illegal-cop-entry-into-home) It should be fixed

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

This pretty much means nothing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0516/Supreme-Court-No-warrant-needed-if-police-discern-destruction-of-evidence

Once police claim they think evidence is being destroyed (and when will they not?), then they are entering the home legally. No? This will only make people think they are resisting an "unlawful" entry. The entry will be deemed lawful and the dead resistor's family won't even receive an apology. Or if the resistor lives, they will just get more charges.

So while the MI supreme court may be right, it is effectively a meaningless ruling in the real world.

[kcchiefs6465]

This pretty much means nothing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0516/Supreme-Court-No-warrant-needed-if-police-discern-destruction-of-evidence

Once police claim they think evidence is being destroyed (and when will they not?), then they are entering the home legally. No? This will only make people think they are resisting an "unlawful" entry. The entry will be deemed lawful and the dead resistor's family won't even receive an apology. Or if the resistor lives, they will just get more charges.

So while the MI supreme court may be right, it is effectively a meaningless ruling in the real world.

Way to rain on the parade. In reference to the story she should have just talked to them through the door. And I have no idea who in the right mind would say "Yeah, there's underage drinking going on." Of course they searched. In Ohio that would most likely have been upheld as probable cause.

[DamianTV]

He's right. As long as the courts are willing to take the bs excuses of cops over enforcing the law, we are still screwed. Better to have my parade rained on than to falsely believe that cops wont still kick in my front door.

[kcchiefs6465]

He's right. As long as the courts are willing to take the bs excuses of cops over enforcing the law, we are still screwed. Better to have my parade rained on than to falsely believe that cops wont still kick in my front door.

Oh, he is definitely correct in his post. It's just that I have very little hope now-a-days and any step in the right direction (no matter how minor or insignificant it might be) is a breath of fresh air for me. My pessimism often gets the better of me and many days I am stuck fuming about a particular article or story. It is nice to read about NDAA nullifications and the like. Though in my heart I know we are far too gone.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Way to rain on the parade.

lol. I'm not raining on the parade. The federal judiciary is raining on the parade. Learn the difference. I'm telling you what the real world result will be, regardless of what the MI supreme court says.

In reference to the story, nobody needed to answer the door for the police to make that assertion. Not in MI where the ruling was made, or Ohio. In fact, NOT answering the door would be used against the resident in some form or another. They will simply break through it, citing the supreme court ruling.

The truth will hurt less after you understand it, and I'm not raining on anyone's parade unless you're living in a nice happy delusional parade. It takes the MI legislature to change these things or at least make a real attempt at doing so. The ruling might be nice to hear, but when you put it all together, it is meaningless.

[JebSanderson]

What exactly does "resist" mean though? Can you hold the door shut? Push the cop? Punch him? Shoot him?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

What exactly does "resist" mean though? Can you hold the door shut? Push the cop? Punch him? Shoot him?


It means nothing until litigated, and the higher court has already made it clear that they can come in "legally" if the police "think" someone might be destroying evidence inside.

[DamianTV]

What exactly does "resist" mean though? Can you hold the door shut? Push the cop? Punch him? Shoot him?

Any sort of resistance is frowned upon, and the only way that a person will ever see light of day again is to be acquitted of any wrongdoing by a Jury of their Peers. Just because a person is allowed to resist an unlawful arrest, dont expect the courts to simply back down without one helluva fight.

Most of the time, the courts and entire legal system abuse the threat of the fight being enough to entice most people to back down. This is what they do for a living. They drag people into courts where they dont know how to fight back. The people give in to their fears and accept plea bargains and pay fines, which ultimately affects the rights of everyone. If I brought the entire US Military to your front door and told you that I was going to do something totally and completely illegal to you, would you fight back? You and your handful of guns? How are you going to stand up to the tanks and aircraft and weapons at the disposal of the US Military? You might try to fight back, and you might put up one hell of a fight, for about two seconds. The absolute dread that a person would respond with is the same way most people percieve even having to go to court to fight an unjust speeding ticket.

That is the power of threat and intimidation.

[csu1987]

Man Who Resisted Police Wins Supreme Court Case

April 21, 2012 2:29 PM

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/04/21/man-who-resisted-police-wins-supreme-court-case/

HOLLAND (WWJ/AP) - The Michigan Supreme Court says people can resist police officers who unlawfully enter their homes.

In a 5-2 decision, the court ordered that charges be dropped against Angel Moreno Jr., a western Michigan man who was accused of obstructing officers at his home in Holland. The officers were looking for someone and tried to enter the home without a warrant.

Lower courts had upheld charges of resisting police, based on a 2004 Supreme Court decision, but justices on Friday said that case was wrongly decided.

The opinion was written by Justice Diane Hathaway. She and two other Democrats on the court were joined by two Republican justices, a rare alliance. The dissenters were Republican justices Stephen Markman and Robert Young Jr.

Moreno’s case started on Dec. 30, 2008. Holland police officer Troy DeWys was going to issue a parking ticket for a vehicle belonging to Shane Adams, who had several outstanding warrants.

While he was standing at Adams’ unoccupied car, DeWys noticed a vehicle pulling out of a driveway at a nearby home. The driver allegedly got out of his car and told DeWys that his girlfriend, and some minors, were inside the home drinking alcohol. DeWys asked if Adams was in the house, but the driver indicated that he was unsure.

Court documents show that DeWys then called for backup officers, all of whom arrived in police uniform. They approached the home, knocked on the front and back doors, and identified themselves as police officers. Peering through windows, the officers say they saw about a dozen people running around and hiding.

About 15 minutes later, Mandy McCarry opened the front door. She admitted that under-age drinking was going on in the house and that she knew Adams, but denied that he was in the home. She refused to allow the officers into the house without a warrant.

At this point, the officers secured the back door to the home. When three other officers arrived at the scene, the house was surrounded. DeWys reported that, when standing at the open door, he smelled a strong odor of intoxicants and burnt marijuana.

When DeWys informed McCarry that officers were entering to secure the house while they obtained a search warrant, Angel Moreno Jr. allegedly came to the door and refused to allow the officers to enter, demanding that they get a search warrant first.

According to court documents, Moreno told the officers to get off the porch and attempted to close the door. When an officer placed his shoulder against the door to prevent it from being closed, a struggle ensued between Moreno and the officers.

Moreno was eventually subdued, removed from the home and arrested. Officers then entered the house. After obtaining the search warrant, the officers discovered an ounce of marijuana and some pills.

Moreno was bound over for trial on one charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer, and one charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer causing injury.

Moreno filed a motion to quash based on the illegal entry of officers into the home. The trial court agreed that the officers’ entry into the home was illegal, but denied his motion.

Moreno then sought reconsideration, arguing that he had the right to act in self-defense because the officers used excessive force. The trial court denied that motion.

Moreno said his right of due process was violated by a lack of notice, claiming no reasonable person would have been aware or known they could be charged for defending theirs own home against an aggressive police officer acting without a warrant.

<end>

This was the original story, it lacked information so I posted the other one above.

I'm posting this link, only for the comments, which are worth a read.

Let me get you started:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Man-who-resisted-police-wins-Supreme-Court-case/-/1719418/11359286/-/ufqpin/-/index.html


Question, does this law go for all states or just michigan ?

[kcchiefs6465]

lol. I'm not raining on the parade. The federal judiciary is raining on the parade. Learn the difference. I'm telling you what the real world result will be, regardless of what the MI supreme court says.

In reference to the story, nobody needed to answer the door for the police to make that assertion. Not in MI where the ruling was made, or Ohio. In fact, NOT answering the door would be used against the resident in some form or another. They will simply break through it, citing the supreme court ruling.

The truth will hurt less after you understand it, and I'm not raining on anyone's parade unless you're living in a nice happy delusional parade. It takes the MI legislature to change these things or at least make a real attempt at doing so. The ruling might be nice to hear, but when you put it all together, it is meaningless.

I understand the law. Ever hide from the pigs? I HAVE SHUT MY LIGHTS OFF AND NOT ANSWERED THE DOOR (saw them coming). No, they didn't kick my door in. They peered in windows to see if someone was moving inside and listened for noise. After beating on my door for 20 minutes they left. When they came back the next day my naive brother let them in. I would have talked to them THROUGH THE DOOR. I have no delusions about what they will or will not do seeing how where I am from and currently living they violate "our" rights all the time. Everything isn't so black and white. No matter what the Supreme Court says. Every situation is different. And TBH, I wish they would have kicked my door in. A month to sit out (though at the time I would have bonded out) while waiting on evidence to be ruled inadmissable and the best new front door TPD can buy. FTP.