ILNews

Justices asked to rehear Barnes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to revisit a ruling on a person’s right to resist illegal law enforcement entry into one’s home, and 71 state legislators have signed an amicus curiae brief asking the justices to narrow their decision.

Vanderburgh County public defender Erin Berger filed a rehearing petition June 9 with the state’s highest court, asking it to reconsider the 3-2 ruling it made May 12 in Richard Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343. The brief points to the U.S. Constitution’s protections in the Fourth Amendment on search and seizure as well as the Fifth and 14th amendments and federal caselaw on due process and ex post facto violations. Berger also argues that Barnes runs afoul of the First Amendment and Indiana Constitution protecting free speech.

The Indiana attorney general’s office has until June 27 to respond. Attorney General Greg Zoeller has publicly stated his support for a rehearing because of concerns that the ruling is too broad.

The court on June 10 allowed lawmakers to file their amicus brief, which Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis professor Joel M. Schumm filed on behalf of 40 senators and 31 representatives. The brief focuses on two areas: Indiana’s self-defense statute and the underlying public policy concerns.

Lawmakers argue the state’s self-defense statute has allowed residents to use “reasonable” force if the person “reasonably believes” that force is necessary to prevent or end unlawful entry into his or her home. In 2006, the statute was broadened to say that residents don’t have a duty to retreat when faced with unlawful entry.

That statute, Indiana Code 35-41-3-2, is one that Berger does not discuss in her rehearing petition, and it remains to be seen if the AG’s response will address it.

The legislators’ brief also points to concerns about how this ruling impacts cases of police impersonators trying to gain entry into homes. The brief cites examples from Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Los Angeles in which someone falsely posed as a police officer to gain entry into a home and commit a crime.

“These headlines need not be replicated in Indiana. Rather, granting rehearing is appropriate to narrow this Court’s holding and apprise our citizens that they retain the venerable right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into their homes by police,” the brief states.

A second amicus brief was filed June 13 on behalf of five others – John Wesley Hall, an Arkansas lawyer and past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who writes a blog about the 4th Amendment; New York criminal law professor K. Babe Howell; professor Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business; and professor Steve Russell at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Rehearing "No right to resist" IL June 8-21, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT

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