ILNews

Barnes-inspired legislation passes Senate on 3rd reading

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The legislation created in response to a controversial Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year regarding defending against unlawful entry was approved 45-5 by the Senate on third hearing Monday.

The introduced version of Senate Bill 1 was prepared by the Legislative Council Barnes v. State Subcommittee last summer. The bill allows a person to resist the unlawful entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer under certain conditions. Legislators decided to take a look at Indiana law after the Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. State that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under state law.

Senate Bill 32, which deals with guardianship of a minor who hasn’t been adjudicated an incapacitated person, is also before the House Monday on third reading.

Senate Bill 286, which deals with various matters involving the Department of Child Services; and Senate Bill 18, which changes the duty to provide child support to stop when the child turns 19 instead of 21, with educational need exceptions, are before the House Monday on second reading.

The House Judiciary Committee met Monday morning to discuss four bills: HB 1049 on problem solving courts; HB 1092 on adding a Johnson Superior Court judge; HB 1206 on third-party lawsuit lending; and HB 1133 on rights of publicity.

On Tuesday, the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee will meet at 8:30 a.m. to discuss several bills, including SB 293 on changes to the inheritance tax. At 9:30 a.m., the Senate committee on Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters will discuss five bills: SB 234 on synthetic drugs; SB 97 on public intoxication; SB 376 on the discharge of long-term inmates; SB 347 on marijuana offenses; and SB 96 on theft.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet Wednesday to hear nine bills, including SB 235 on a pro bono legal services fee; SB 246 on lab technician testimony in criminal cases; and SB 152, which adds a second full-time magistrate judge in Allen Circuit Court.

To view the status of legislation, visit the General Assembly’s website.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • REASONABLE RESISTENCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IS AN ILLUTION.
    Allowing reasonable resistance to law enforce is not a workable concept. Any resistance would be met with greater force, and the likelihood of serious injury to an officer or to a citizen would be increased. Leave the remedy to be worked out by the courts are all facts are known.

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT