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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT