ILNews

Lawmakers discuss scope of police entry case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Bedford lawyer-legislator says a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision on resisting police entry has resulted in more feedback from attorneys and residents statewide than he’s experienced since the daylight saving time debate.

That comment set the stage for the first legislative subcommittee meeting June 29 aimed at exploring the court’s split decision May 12 in Barnes v. State, No. 82S05-1007-CR-343.

The justices' 3-2 ruling went further than any before on the issue of resisting police entry into a person’s home and held that Indiana no longer recognizes a common law right to resist in any situation. That decision fueled widespread outrage and critics say it goes too far and conflicts with both the Fourth Amendment and the state’s self-defense statute.

Though both sides have filed briefs requesting and supporting a rehearing, the Legislative Council created a four-person subcommittee to study this issue more in-depth.

Sen., Brent Steele, R-Bedford, who chairs the subcommittee, said he isn’t sure if the panel should wait on discussing and deciding this issue until the Supreme Court decides whether it’ll rehear the case.

“I think it’s incumbent upon us to do something legislatively,” he said at the meeting. “How often have lawyers seen the court say that the legislature didn’t address something? We run the risk of looking like we’ve abrogated our duties and that we decided not to deal with it immediately.”

Aside from Steele, Sen. Tim Lanane (D-Anderson) and Rep. Eric Turner (R-Cicero) were at the first meeting. Rep. Linda Lawson, (D-Hammond) did not attend. They passed out briefs filed in the case, as well as the justices’ ruling for everyone to review.

Lanane discussed his view of what the majority was saying – that any resistance can lead to an escalation of violence – and he wondered what the answer might be if any action is allowed by residents.

Lt. Mark Carnell, legal counsel for the Indiana State Police, said the ruling has had no impact on the agency's procedures and police don’t see it as giving officers any greater right to enter homes. Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, who is not a member of the subcommittee but attended the meeting to criticize the ruling, said he’d prefer police to hold off and wait when a situation is unclear.

Although the 11-page ruling states the court was deciding "the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," Steele and others question whether it also impacts Indiana statute delving into this issue. One statute is the 2006 “castle doctrine” that broadened state residents’ right to protect themselves from unlawful entries into their homes.

Legislative Services Agency attorney Andrew Hedges told the subcommittee members that the ruling could be interpreted to impact only common law or also the statues, but it’s not clear. He described the structure of the opinion as a possible “drafting error” because it switches from addressing the common law aspect to even broader wording about the general right to resist police entry, and that it's unclear about the scope of the ruling. Hedges said the court could have included a footnote addressing the statute, but didn’t and so court watchers are left wondering whether the justices forgot about that statutory impact or if they ignored it to only address the common law question. He questioned Justice David’s use of “in sum” when issuing the holding, and whether that means the holding is limited to common law or also abrogates any statutory right to resist.

Steele sees that as a problem that needs legislative attention.

“I see this as two trains headed toward each other on the same track that will collide someday,” he said, in reference to the Supreme Court ruling and the self-defense statute revised five years ago.

A date for the second meeting hasn’t been set, but the three members at the first meeting indicated that August might be the next time they can gather. This subcommittee’s role would simply be to recommend any legislative changes to the full General Assembly once it reconvenes for the 2011-12 session.

Meanwhile, the briefing period is finished and the Supreme Court is now deciding whether it will revisit the case. The justices have no timetable in making that decision and could hold additional arguments, request more material, or rule based on the briefs and past record in the appeal.

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT