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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT