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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT