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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT