ILNews

Lawmakers finalizing post-Barnes legislation proposals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A legislative study committee is about a week away from finalizing its proposals to clarify state law and allow for Indiana residents to use reasonable force to resist police entry into their homes in all but domestic violence and certain emergency situations.

The panel studying the Indiana Supreme Court’s rulings in Barnes v. State met Thursday to discuss possibilities on revising state statute on the heels of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling. The high court held residents don’t have a common law right to resist an officer entering one’s home and that the state’s “castle doctrine” doesn’t allow reasonable resistance even if police are entering illegally.

In May, the justices upheld an Evansville man’s conviction of resisting law enforcement in a purported domestic violence situation, and that decision sparked widespread disapproval and debate across Indiana. Critics argued it violated the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and infringed on homeowners’ rights. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and 71 lawmakers asked the court to rehear the case. Last month, the justices reaffirmed the original ruling but invited the General Assembly to take up the matter and provide statutory defenses to resisting police entry into a home.

The proposed legislation takes up that invitation, saying people may use “reasonable force, including violent force” — if they believe it’s necessary and have no alternative — to prevent entry into their home if they do not know it's police or if the officer is not performing official duties.

In proposed legislative drafts discussed Thursday, the panel decided they would specifically include law enforcement officers under the castle doctrine but that ability to resist wouldn’t apply to suspected cases of domestic violence or imminent harm, crimes in progress, the service of warrants or pursuit of suspects.

Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, one of the authors of the proposed legislation, said the exemptions including cases of imminent harm and hot pursuit were important to include to protect police. He noted the Barnes case involved a report of domestic violence in progress and said that in many such cases, victims will not speak out in the presence of their batterers.

“We need a bright line (rule), to delineate when violence can be used, to protect the people and our police officers,” Young said.

Other versions discussed Thursday are all being weaved into the final legislation, a combination of the work by Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, and Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford. Those proposals would make it a Class D felony for law enforcement officers to knowingly enter a home when it’s not necessary to prevent injury or death.

The panel is due to vote next week on its recommended legislation to the 2012 General Assembly. Any proposed bills still would need approval from the Indiana General Assembly and Gov. Mitch Daniels.
 

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 gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT