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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

        2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

        3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

        4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

        5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

        ADVERTISEMENT