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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.