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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT