ILNews

Governor signs bill inspired by Supreme Court ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law Tuesday evening. The legislation deals with the right of people to defend against unlawful entry and was created in response to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State.

“Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them,” he said.

In Barnes, a divided Supreme Court held that residents don’t have a common law right to resist police in any situation. A legislative study committee was formed to look into the law.

The new law puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a police officer: it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully and adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen.

“Moreover, unless a person is convinced an officer is acting unlawfully, he cannot use any force of any kind. In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels said.

SEA 1 is the last bill the governor signed into law this session. A complete list of legislation is available on the governor’s website.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • good law
    in St Joe county a man was recently arrested for impersonating a federal marshall. The South bend tribune said that "the activity had been going on for some time" or words to that effect. More so than law abiding cops, this bill sends a message to those who would abuse the appearance of police authority, real or apparent, that unlawful home invasions by persons in uniform may be lawfully resisted with reasonable force.

    This right is a natural one confered by God not any legislature but nevertheless this is a good thing for a free people just as our ancestors thought when it was writ into the Magna Carta.

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