ILNews

Justice: Ruling lets government agents enter homes illegally

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana Supreme Court justices dissented from their colleagues in a case involving the right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, with one justice writing that he believes the majority is “essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally.”

In Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343, Richard Barnes appealed his misdemeanor convictions of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct. Police responded to a 911 call by Barnes’ wife concerning domestic violence. When police arrived, Barnes was in the parking lot, but then went back into his apartment to retrieve more items because he was going to leave the apartment he shared with his wife.

When police tried to enter, Barnes told them they couldn’t and blocked them. When an officer attempted to come inside, Barnes shoved him against the wall and a struggle ensued.

Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court’s refusal to give his tendered jury instruction on the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen’s home, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on the battery and resisting charges.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, and Justices Steven David and Frank Sullivan agreed with the trial court’s decision to not offer the instruction. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has been faced with whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.

After examining the English common-law right to resist unlawful police action, and previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on the matter, the majority concluded the right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

“Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action,” wrote Justice David, citing bail and the exclusionary rule as examples. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case.”

The majority held that in Indiana, the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law. Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented in separate opinions. Justice Dickson wrote he would have preferred the majority to have taken a more narrow approach by “construing the right to resist unlawful police entry, which extends only to reasonable resistance, by deeming unreasonable a person’s resistance to police entry in the course of investigating reports of domestic violence.  ... Such a more cautious revision of the common law would have, in cases not involving domestic violence, left in place the historic right of people to reasonably resist unlawful police entry in their dwellings.”

In his dissent, Justice Rucker felt the majority’s ruling was far too broad and would allow the government to enter homes illegally, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance. He also said the right to resist unlawful entry into the home rests on the Fourth Amendment.

“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home,” wrote Justice Rucker.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • From Rucker's Dissent
    William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of a debate in Parliament:
    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
  • next headline should read "3 former judges deported"!
    We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    Abraham Lincoln

    How these three judges could be so far off is mind-blowing, its as if they had never even studied law, or ever even seen an episode of schoolhouse rock. It's disgusting and they should be ashamed!
  • Reply to 3 Judicial Idiots
    Unfortunately Bill, the three judges who ruled were appointed by Republican Govs and one by Bayh, obviously not liberals. I'm a Conservative Republican and am totally disgusted by this.
  • burglary/ home invasion specialists like this case!
    There are a lot of incidents of burglars committing home invasions disguised as police. That is just one empirical example of why this right should not be attacked by judges. The people need to be secure in their right to defend themselves and their property. This search query will yield many examples

    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7n7mgdFNjHcA07RXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDUCMyMTQyMzU3MDg5BF9yAzIEYW8DMQRjc3JjcHZpZANGZEkxekVvRzd2NnhtUXJVVGMyRHBBWFJUTkFSamszUmdlWUFBaHp0BGZyA2Noci15aWU4BGZyMgNzYnRuBG5fZ3BzAzIEb3JpZ2luA3NycARxdWVyeQNwb2xpY2UgaW52YWRlIGhvbWUEc2FvAzEEdnRlc3RpZANWSVAwNjg-?p=police+invade+home&fr2=sb-top&fr=chr-yie8&type_param=
  • statism in action
    She admitted he had not harmed her. There was not even a reasonable suspicion of a crime. No warrant, no probable cause, no suspicion, and a lawful occupant refused the police entry, rightly so and the overweening overzealous cop beat him down for it. This is so wrong. The police have all their guns and swat teams to protect them. What protects the individual from the police? Not only a paper document but the righteous fear that some people may capably and lawfully defend themselves.

    I prophesy that the NRA and liberterian right will be just as outraged at this piece of trash as the liberal left will be. This is police statism in action here folks.

    Why not ship him off to Gitmo!
  • speak--- redress...
    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Dont throw up your hands. Get moving on letting your public servants know that this is unacceptable.
  • our right to self defense is not granted by any court nor may it be "abrogated"
    King John is laughing at us from his place in hell.

    This was among the rights of Englishmen and it devolved upon us. It is a crucial freedom, the freedom to defend oneself (as always, with reasonable force) against violation of the rights of person or property whether done by private or public agents.

    This little piece of judicial tyrrany repudiates a very rarely used but nonetheless crtically important liberty.
    I can hardly believe this piece of awful judicial activism is "emanating" from my beloved home state of Indiana.

    I have the highest regard for the dissenting judge. I am so thankful that someone at the high and "august" level of judicial legislator at least has some concern for liberty.

    Keep in mind that rights dont go away just because courts say they do. Our rights are God-given and this repugnant travesty will be rectified.
  • entry
    I don't like the ruling, I feel that removing our 4th Amendment rights the judges " ACTED STUPIDLY " and should be removed .
  • entry to home
    From what I read the police were responding to " the Wife's 911 call " now if she had told them they couldn't come in then they should not of entered. but since she had made the call his trying to keep them out was wrong in this case . the police need to make sure she was safe .
    • rights?
      rights in america where are they? the people of indiana need to vote for the change\amendment for the bill of rights not three justices we need our 4th amendent Right not a privlage just cuase someone wants to come in ur home? u have to let them in that crazy our us constiution was made for a reason and was well put togeather by our founding fathers where are our rights hoosiers need to appeal asap
    • 3 judicial IDIOTS Need to educate themselves
      The 3 Judges who decided that the US Constitution 4th Amendment along with other Amendments NO LONGER APPLY to US CITIZENS are COMPLETE IDIOTS and really need to be disrobed and sent back to remedial US history class and LEARN about WHAT,WHY,How the Constitution of the USA is supposed to work.

      Also, the Constitution is a DEAD Document, it is what it is,means what it means...this Liberal 'modification' and trying to make the Constitution a 'living document' is an affront to what it stands for and WHY it was drawn up in the first place...THROW those Judges OUT...send them to China, they can practice their 'Big Brother' law there..
      • The end of Individual rights is here.
        We're throwing away our hard-won civil liberties with both hands. It's the rise of the police state, and the death of the republic. This is only one of the steps that lead us away from freedom, but it's a path down which we travel further every day.

        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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

        2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

        3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

        4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

        5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

        ADVERTISEMENT