We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

...in playing gamesmanship in terms of "Modern Jurisprudence"

Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law--indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture--as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835-36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).

Translation:  The Government that you pay possesses flagrant hold harmless in whatever it chooses to do, and you have the Right, at your additional expense and/or retained representation, with necessitating reclaim of your property and Liberty at a later time from said illegally garnered evidence.

Sorry dudes and dudettes, but the 'ol boy wing GOP Mitch Daniels can park his ass along the sidelines next to Newt Gingrich as far as I'm concerned.

George W's appointed Justice Alito within dealing in his "presumed guilt" statement is for me as alarming as Mitch Daniels appointed Justice Davids' no "Property Rights" statement with his Barnes v. State of Indiana ruling.