I think a lot of what I have to say has been covered (nice legal analysis Usa) but I always like to throw my two cents in those rare cases I actually know what I'm talking about.

First, the issue of redress for constitutional violations are twofold. One is the exclusionary rule which is a child of judicial decisions and allows for the exclusion of evidence in criminal and certain civil court proceedings when that evidence was obtained through a constitutional violation of the person asserting that the evidence should be excluded. To restate, if the State obtains evidence and the method of obtaining said evidence violated your constitutional rights, and the State cannot offer a defense to the violation (e.g. inevitable discovery), that evidence cannot be used against you. It could, however, be used against another person whose rights weren't violated. The second redress is a §1983 claim. Congress passed 42 USC 1983 because of often when a person's constitutional rights are violated they suffer no monetary damages. Section 1983 states that actual damages are not required and the violation itself supports a monetary award. These claims are profitable and Plaintiffs in them are entitled to attorney fees, so any person can bring them at no personal expense.

Second, If the cops showed up at my door and asked to be let in, I would absolutely say no and I encourage all my clients to do the same. If the cops decide to come in anyway, I encourage my clients to ask them politely to leave and then sit quietly and say nothing if the cops don't leave. Resisting cops, even if you have the "right" to do so, is a really bad idea. Police officers have great discretion to act to protect themselves and others from physical threats.

Finally, there are many exceptions to the warrant requirement, and as Usa stated, consent is the most oft used exception. A lot of cops are quite adept at lawfully convincing a person to consent. Other exigencies include extenuating circumstances, hot pursuit, preservation of evidence.

I guess the point of my rant is that there exists redress for constitutional violations and, frankly, for the most part, constitutional violations by the police are unintended. The cops know the exclusionary rule and are generally careful to avoid it.

lavalarva wrote:

What if they find something incredibly incriminating during an illegal search, like a corpse in the living room?

The evidence must be excluded. See, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16659294260001267402&q=Leonardo+Turriago&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38

Although, even in that case (where the NY Appellate Court excluded a body found in a car), a later, higher court opinion found that an exception applied. In that case, it was inevitable discovery. Courts and judges are quite adept at finding exceptions to the exclusionary rule in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

God this decision is stupid. The Indiana Supreme Court easily could have came to the same conclusion on exigency grounds. It seems they are attempting to make a point. "The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, ('One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.')." The reasoning of the Court is that the new grounds for redress didn't exist during the older jurisprudence surrounding resisting unlawful arrest. That argument however assumes that Congressional action can alter the meaning of the Constitution. Were the Supreme Court to hear this on Appeal (who knows if they would even grant cert.) I think they would overturn this decision.

There are a myriad of interpretations the Indiana Supreme Court could have used to arrive at the same conclusion but they just seemed to be wanting to make a point.

And as Usa said, the ruling of a State Court has no impact or authority outside of that State. I did a quick search of other States and what I have come up with so far shows a split of states regarding the right to resist, with reasonably necessary force, an unlawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment.

McCracken v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 254 (Virginia) (yes right to resist)
Ellison v. State, 410 A.2d 519 (Delaware) (no right to resist)

Many other cases I encountered show a Court doing it's best to decide the issue on other grounds (like exigency, hot pursuit or mistaken probable cause).

Another important thing to keep in mind is that, from what I have read, no federal appellate court has ruled on this issue and the Supreme Court has mentioned it only in dicta. That said, I still think, if cert. were to be granted and the Supreme Court heard the case, I think they would rule that there is a right, under the Fourth Amendment, to resist an unlawful arrest.