In the wake of the SB 1 “right to resist”; the Marion County Sheriff’s Office is, per WRTV6, ordering its warrant servers back into uniform. Apparently civil and criminal process servers had been serving summonses and the like in plain clothes. I’m speculating, but one benefit of having plain clothes process servers is that it cuts down on the embarrassment factor of having a Sheriff’s Deputy stop by your house to serve you papers for something relatively minor like getting sued for non-payment of a debt.
But, like approaching a fearful, skittish animal, I suppose police these days are well-advised to announce their presence well in advance.
Meanwhile, the public is reminded that police should always be treated as fearful, skittish animals, that always happen to have guns.
I don’t see how SB1 covers process servers in the first place, since they’re not in the habit of kicking in people’s doors with guns drawn.
“FREEZE! PROCESS SERVER! Is there a Jack Mehoff here??”
No, I think it’s a hissy fit from the IMCMPD directed at the House of Bubbas. got WRTV to spend a few minutes of air time on it, din’t they?
It has been my PERSONAL experience that they knock, and if you don’t have the door open before their knuckles are off it, they just stuff the wad of papers under the doorknob and split like Ninja.
I agree. The Sherrif’s reaction makes no sense. SB 1 only applies to “public servants.” How would a resident know if someone is a public servant? Well, wearing a uniform certainly helps. As such, the sherriff’s actions in making process servers wear uniforms makes an SB 1 response MORE likely, not less likely.
Either: (1) the decision doesn’t have anything to do with SB 1; (2) the sherriff is making a political statement; or (3) the sheriff isn’t very bright. All the above is also an answer.
I have not had personal experience with process servers, but my guess is that the only thing that will really cover people under SB1 is a bullet-proof vest.
The best coverage is probably a policy of not forcing entry into a home without a really damn good legally-legitimate reason.
Or, “Yes officer, you’re SUPPOSED to be afraid of kicking in someone’s door just because you think you can.”
If this statute somehow limited itself to extreme cases of police over-reach that caused well-founded fear in citizens, I’d be a little more sympathetic. But, consider the fact pattern of the case that gave rise to this statute:
Husband was appealing the trial court’s decision not to instruct the jury in his criminal matter that an individual has the right to resist unlawful entry by the police.
Hardly “just kicking in the door because you think you can.”
Unfortunately, the bone-headed, over-reaching decision by the court DID extend it to “just kicking in the door because you think you can” territory. Your trying to limit it to the “fact pattern” is disingenuous.
If the judges had limited themselves to the fact pattern of the case, this problem wouldn’t exist.
But in any case, even without this particular case, the police should be afraid to violate people’s rights. That’s a feature of a free society, not a bug.
I think you’re right that the Indiana Supreme Court invited problems when it decided more than it had to for that case. I believe, the Indiana General Assembly has invited yet more problems by not sufficiently limiting the scope of its legislation.
With this legislation, police not only have to be concerned if they’re violating someone’s rights; but also if the individual incorrectly believes their rights to be violated. And, also, there will be the individuals who, after the fact, attempt to justify using force against the police by pretending that they believed their rights were being violated.
I believe the Supreme Court correctly abrogated the discredited common law right to resist unlawful law enforcement action. The decision was correct on the facts and correct on the law. Doug’s analysis of the facts of the case was correct. It was a violent domestic call with an out of control defendant. That the defendant even had the money to appeal it is amazing to me.
It was well reasoned and well supported by ample research. The MPC elimintated the common law doctrine, as did the Restatement of the Law of Arrests. Dickson urged restraint, but is restraint dodging the propriety of a tendered instruction? Rucker’s decision, a vague grunt about the inapplicable 4th amendment (after all, the right to resist unlawful law enforcement action was a common law doctrine, not 4th amendment jurisprudence) was weak.
In what universe should law enforcement officers be afraid to carry out their duties? Those duties will sometimes be later adjudged to be improper. That is the way a free society is maintained, by fidelity to the rule of lawnot turning Indiana into the Militia land that is Northern Idaho and some of Montana. Paranoid, skittish, but at least those toothless domestic terrorists “think that they’s free.”
“In what universe should law enforcement officers be afraid to carry out their duties?”
No one said they should be. Why do you think they should be?
What was said: “…the police should be afraid to violate people’s rights.”
In a non-police state, a free society, police should think before they act.
Support for the ill-advised SB1 translates to an environment where gun nut, militia, jail house and bar stool misinformation propogates.
What should police be afraid of if the violate someone’s rights? A law suit, discipline, maybe a demotion. Not a shotgun charge in the face by one of the forementioned consititional illiterates.
I’m sorry you think people are universally itching to shoot a cop at the slightest provocation. Or perhaps you’re just exaggerating. I would hope so.
“…also if the individual incorrectly believes their rights to be violated.”
That problem is in no way new.
“And, also, there will be the individuals who, after the fact, attempt to justify using force against the police by pretending that they believed their rights were being violated.”
And there are already people like this. Though usually it’s the cops claiming they feared for their lives after the fact, to justify violence they’ve used.
Thing is, the cops almost always get away with that. I can’t say I feel especially sorry for them if it’s not a game only they can play anymore.
Where do you get your statistics about the more usual situation being that the police are making up excuses for their violent behavior when compared to arrestees making such excuses?
You left off “and the cops getting away with the excuses” part.
Usually you can just take a stroll through the “police professionalism” tag at theagitator.com for one good ongoing source of coverage.
Or hell, try the Atlantic today. It’s starting to actually enter the mainstream news.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/04/elusiveness-police-accountability/1644/
If there’s anything we should learn from the Trayvon Martin case and subsequent coverage, it’s that any sort of Stand Your Ground law has more far-reaching effects than even its authors intended. Jeb Bush, who signed Florida’s law, said it wasn’t supposed to apply in a case like Martin’s. But the Tampa Bay Times has done good work showing that there have been scores of arrests NOT made, or convictions not gained, because of Stand Your Ground, even when “Stand Your Ground” meant “stalk until you can shoot.” (From whatever story is told about the Martin-Zimmerman confrontation, BOTH could be said to be acting perfectly within their legal rights under Florida law.)
Basically, what laws like “Stand Your Ground” and SB1 do is put the onus on police and prosecutors to prove why there should be an arrest, rather than on the arrested to prove self-defense. All you need is a jury to believe you “reasonably” had to defend yourself, no matter what the intentions of those who wrote the law. Of course we don’t want police to have unfettered power. But the way SB1 is written swings things WAY too far the other way. There are police and public officials who are going to be killed, and there are going to be police and prosecutors who refuse to put away the killers because they no longer have legal standing to do so.
Yeah, it’s a strange notion that police and prosecutors should have to justify curtailing someone’s liberties.
Sad that it’s strange.
You’re free to hold the opinion that SB1 goes too far. But that’s all it is, your opinion.
Your speculation, however, is nothing more than speculation. My counter speculation: the idea that there are police and prosecutors that wouldn’t try to put someone away for killing one of their own whether they had legal standing or not is pure, absurd fantasy.
But then again, aren’t most laws written (by design) incompletely?
I would say that most are (especially the closer to the local level one gets). Allows for more “interpretation” on the part of the upholders of the laws.
Depends a little bit by what you mean by “incompletely.” But, if I take your meaning correctly, I’d say that’s true to some degree; particularly in common law systems. I don’t have any direct exposure, but it’s my understanding that civil law systems tend to have more comprehensive and detailed statutory schemes.
The judiciary, in the common law system, fills in the statutory gaps. This certainly has its drawbacks, but, I think ultimately it lets the law develop a little more organically and respond a little more specifically to the facts on the ground at the time.
I think it depends on the drafters and the legislatures. And the political considerations at the time. The Internal Revenue Code is written with great precision. Much of the Indiana Criminal Code, modeled on the Model Penal Code, is precisely drafted.
On the other hand, the second sentence of the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment to the Indiana consitution, while aimed at civil unions, could put legal planning between LG at risk.
“only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”