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

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