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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT