ILNews

Barnes panel OKs proposed law changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative study committee has approved proposed changes to state law that it hopes the Indiana General Assembly will consider in response to a state Supreme Court decision earlier this year.

On Thursday, the committee studying the justices’ controversial Barnes v. State decisions passed language that would clarify state statute involving when residents have the right to reasonably resist police who are entering their homes.

As currently written, the committee’s draft legislation permits a homeowner to use reasonable force in resisting a police officer’s unlawful entry into a residence if that homeowner does not have actual knowledge that the officer is an officer or if that officer isn’t engaged in official duty. The legislation notes that even then, violent force should be used to prevent unlawful entry only if there is no other adequate alternative.

The draft legislation does not allow homeowners to resist if a police officer enters in cases of hot pursuit; if that officer has a warrant, suspects domestic violence or has reasonable belief that someone inside the house is at risk of physical harm; if at least one resident invites an officer inside and there’s no other objection from any adults inside; and pursuit of a criminal committing or escaping after the commission of a crime.

“Our draft legislation allows statutory defense for homeowners in specific situations of unlawful home entry by law enforcement,” said Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, the lawyer-lawmaker who chaired the four-person panel established in June. “It was this panel’s goal to make a suggestion that would protect both homeowners and police officers, reducing the potential for violence and respecting the private property of citizens.”

The Supreme Court in May issued a ruling that said Indiana residents have no common law right to resist police entering their homes. The Vanderburgh County case involved Richard Barnes, who’d been convicted of resisting police and battery on an officer that stemmed from a 911 call about possible domestic violence. Barnes didn’t want police entering his home after they arrived on the scene and he resisted when they tried to enter. The justices determined Barnes had no common law right to commit battery or resist. In September, they issued a second ruling that clarified their holding to mean that even Indiana’s castle doctrine allowing homeowners the right to protect their residences doesn’t offer a defense to resistance or battery on an officer.

The three committee members present at Thursday’s meeting supported the proposed changes – Steele, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, and Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond. Member Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, wasn’t at the meeting. Those attending said these changes are a work in progress and that more revisions could be made during the regular session that starts in January.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT