ILNews

Court addresses Barnes retroactivity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals added a new dimension to the debate about police entry and reasonable resistance, with a three-judge panel for the first time bringing up the issue of retroactivity as applied to the state justices’ controversial ruling in Barnes v. State.

With a ruling Wednesday in Danielle Garrett v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1101-CR-1, the intermediate appellate court affirmed an Indianapolis woman’s convictions of resisting law enforcement and battery on a police officer and refused an invitation to revisit the Barnes case that the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on in May and clarified in September on rehearing.

In this Marion County case, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer arrested Danielle Garrett in August 2010 after responding to a report of domestic violence at a home. The officer arrived and saw Garrett angrily walking from a nearby intersection toward the house where the report came from, muttering under her breath. She was identified as one of the individuals involved in the disturbance.

The uniformed officer told Garrett to stay outside, but she ignored the command and walked inside the house. The officer believed she was going to start a fight, and so he followed Garrett inside after observing her yelling and screaming at family members inside and refusing to leave. The officer grabbed her by the wrist and told her to go outside, but Garrett pulled away and went farther into the house. Additional officers arrived and she started yelling more loudly as they tried to calm her, and when one officer tried to place her in handcuffs, Garrett took an aggressive fighting stance and then struggled with the officer and kneed him in the upper thigh.

The officers eventually subdued and put restraints on Garrett, and that led to charges of resisting law enforcement, battery on an officer and disorderly conduct. She was found guilty of battery on an officer and resisting law enforcement at a bench trial in December 2010.

Garrett appealed, arguing that evidence doesn’t support her conviction because she has a right to reasonably resist the police because they entered her home without a warrant and without any other justifiable reason for entry. Specifically, Garrett took issue with the Barnes ruling where the Indiana Supreme Court held “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” She also argued that Barnes should not be applied retroactively to her case – she filed her appellant’s brief at the time a rehearing petition before the Indiana Supreme Court was pending following the original May 12 ruling.

The Court of Appeals found the entry was justified because of Garrett’s conduct and the uncertain nature of what was happening, as well as how she at one point asked police why they were talking to her inside the home instead of investigating others – something the appellate panel described as “clearly acquiesced” to them being there to investigate someone she believed was in the bathroom. Her resistance is separate from the issue of entry, the court wrote, and so her claims are without merit because that behavior wasn’t reasonable even if the police entry wasn’t lawful.

“Given that Garrett has failed to establish an unlawful entry and our conclusion that her resistance was not reasonable, the rule announced in Barnes is not applicable to the present case,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote. “Notwithstanding, the Barnes decision does not present an ex post facto problem in this case. It has long been established that battery against a police officer is not reasonable resistance under the common law.”

Citing Robinson v. State, 814 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), Friedlander noted that “even prior to Barnes, Garrett’s conduct in forcefully combating the officer(s) after she acquiesced in their presence in her home was unlawful.”

In a footnote, Friedlander wrote that the panel declined Garrett’s request to reconsider the Supreme Court’s holding in Barnes. Judges Carr Darden and Nancy Vaidik agreed in affirming the ruling by Marion Superior Judge Rebekah Pierson-Treacy and Magistrate Steven Rubick.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT