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

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