ILNews

ISBA responds to fallout from split Supreme Court ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Bar Association issued a statement today addressing the outrage being expressed by many people concerning a state Supreme Court decision last week, which held individuals don’t have the right to resist police who enter private residences, even if those entries are illegal.

Justices handed down a 3-2 decision on May 12 in Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343. The majority ruled the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers is no longer recognized in Indiana. Justice Steven David authored the majority opinion, writing that a person can use the legal system for redress against unlawful police action rather than resorting to violence in the heat of the moment.  Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker each dissented, believing the opinion went too far and tells Hoosiers that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances.

In the week since, national and statewide media coverage has focused on the ruling and public reaction. Evansville attorney Erin Berger, who represented Barnes, plans to ask for a rehearing and is prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller today said he supports a rehearing to allow for a more narrow decision. On appeal, the AG’s office didn’t advocate for this broad of a ruling.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle have reacted and criticized the ruling, saying they’ll sponsor legislation to override it, and a public protest rally is being organized for Wednesday at the Statehouse. As of this morning, more than 1,300 people had signed up on Facebook to attend.

Earlier this week, the court’s public information officer, Kathryn Dolan, said the high court has received threatening calls and emails in response to the ruling. She said those threats were primarily toward police. She declined to provide specific information regarding the number of threats, what the calls or messages said, or how the threats may have impacted day-to-day functions at the court. Dolan said Indiana Capitol Police are investigating.

Today, the ISBA issued a brief two-paragraph statement:
“Everyday our courts issue opinions with which people disagree – even vigorously. While those who disagree with the opinion have a right to criticize it, the Indiana State Bar Association encourages that such criticism be in a respectful manner, excluding personal and inflammatory attacks on individual judges and law enforcement officials,” the statement says.

“Our democracy depends on an independent judiciary supported in the exercise of its constitutional obligation to decide cases fairly and dispassionately. Those decisions must be made according to law, without regard to public pressure and fear of political reprisal. In the coming weeks, the Indiana Supreme Court may be asked to reconsider the decision through a petition for rehearing. The case might also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. These are appropriate means to challenge the decision; threats and personal attacks are not.”

Terre Haute attorney and ISBA President Jeffry Lind said the statement was in direct response to the media reports about potential threats to the judiciary and police, not  because of any specific concerns brought by association members.

 “Attorneys knew these things were happening, and our hope is to not only support free speech but to remind everyone that the legal process has its own legal process. Violence isn’t the answer and not a part of the healthy discourse process we have,” Lind said.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Independant
    "Our democracy depends on an independent judiciary supported in the exercise of its constitutional obligation to decide cases fairly and dispassionately."

    The ISBA needs to stop advocating against the people. Judges selected by the state and its politicians need to be accountable to the people. Electing judges in our counties works very well. They are accountable. Without accountability to the people violence will be the peoples only option. Read the Declaration of Independance.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT