ILNews

Lawmakers discuss Barnes police entry ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana summer study committee met for the second time Wednesday to discuss a state Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year involving the right to resist police entry into one’s home.

The four-person Legislative Council subcommittee compromised of chair Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, and Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, listened to more than an hour’s worth of testimony on the ruling in Barnes v. State, which the Indiana Supreme Court issued on May 12.

Three justices voted to abolish residents’ long-held common law right to resist, while two dissenting justices felt the holding went too far and could be read as a free pass for police to enter homes illegally despite the Fourth Amendment. That latter train of thought is what has caused a firestorm of public opinion about the ruling, and those attending the hearing this week mostly focused their opposition to the court decision on that sentiment.

Ten residents from all corners of the state came to the Indiana Statehouse to tell lawmakers what they think, even as the Supreme Court continues weighing whether it will rehear the case.

One woman from Speedway told the panel that the Indiana Supreme Court did an “end-run” around the Legislature and that the court had stepped beyond its judicial power, while others pointed to the U.S. Constitution and the framers’ intent to give people the right to defend themselves in their own homes.

Leo Blackwell, general counsel for the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, said the ruling will hardly lead to police indiscriminately kicking in doors across the state. He stepped around offering any suggestion about what should happen on this topic and said that is something for the courts and Legislature to deal with.

“Police should not be put in the position of deciding legality on a front door step,” he said.

Blackwell said the Indiana Supreme Court's heart was in the right place and the rationale of their decision needs to be upheld. He worries that revoking the ruling could put police officers in a “Catch-22.” Without the protection provided by the Indiana Supreme Court, officers face violence when entering a home because of a safety risk or emergency situation. But if officers opt not to go in, they risk criticism or litigation later if a person is injured or killed, he said.

Panel member Lawson said she’s split on the decision because of her past roles as both a longtime police officer and also a domestic violence advocate. She largely defended police and pointed out that they do not want to enter someone’s home and that they try to avoid these situations if at all possible. But domestic violence calls, like the one police responded to in the Barnes case out Vanderburgh County, are some of the toughest for police to handle and they need the ability to protect those who are inside. She said 911 calls often provide police with enough probable cause to enter a home because someone phoning dispatch is reporting an emergency and the police are responding to that call.

Lanane, who is also an attorney, wondered whether it’s a deterrent that the federal courts allow for actions against police officers who enter a home illegally in a situation that doesn’t warrant that type of entry. He also wondered how a person is supposed to handle situations of police imposters – do nothing or try to defend if something seems suspicious.

Lanane also wondered if state statute that in 2005 adopted the “castle-doctrine” applied to police officers or if they were exempt. That law was not addressed in the Supreme Court’s decision and although nothing in the law distinguishes police, Lanane wondered if it might be worth noting that police are not exempted. Panel members also suggested eliminating no-knock, no-announce searches in Indiana, something that wasn’t a specific issue in this case but has also been the subject of criticism following a separate Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year.

 “We have to be very careful how we proceed,” Lanane said, expressing his concern about implying that it’s OK for residents to forcefully resist officers who come to their door. “These are life-and-death issues.”

At the end of the hearing, Steele said he doesn’t know where the discussion will lead or if the study committee will even make a recommendation to the full Legislature.

What happens on this may be dictated by what the Supreme Court decides to do about a rehearing petition currently pending on the Barnes case. The Evansville attorney representing Barnes and the Indiana Attorney General have both requested rehearing, and the court could make any number of choices in handling that – denying the petition with or without comment, granting it and holding new arguments for a later ruling, or issuing a clarification or new ruling that affirms or reverses its past decision fully or in part.

The legislative subcommittee plans to meet again, but the next meeting has not yet been scheduled.




 

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. 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