This is part of story reporter chose to ignore.
Man and woman got into physical fight. She called 911. He was on lawn when cops arrived.
I have not read about a physical fight. I read she called 911 after husband threw her cell phone (while in an argument). He was leaving the apartment when the police arrived. She had told them she had not been physically harmed over the phone.
To run away from cops, he ran into house, baricaded door, told cops they could not come in. Wife, also inside asked them to come in to protect her.
That's not what the articles say. The story presented said she went back inside the apartment and so did husband. He refused them entry verbally and blocked the doorway. The wife did not ask them in; she told
her husband not to "do this" and to "just let them in"......not the police officers.
Cops entered. He started fight, hit cops.
Again, that's not what has been written. He blocked the doorway. The police officer had to have "started the fight" by, I'm assuming, pushing against him.....otherwise, how would the police officer have entered? He did not hit the cops. Barnes (the husband) shoved a police officer against the wall. After struggling with the police officers, they put him in a choke hold and tasered him. He had to be taken to the hospital because of being tasered.
DEF sought to have case throw out on two grounds, Entry was illegal, and if entry was illegal, he had right to physically resist. Courts said no on both counts. Entry/search was legal for a number of reasons; wife’s request, prevent further violence, fleeing suspect, etc.
The wife never invited them in. There had been no physical violence except for the cell phone being thrown, he was not fleeing. In fact, he was leaving the apartment before the police officers arrived. They said he didn't have the right to "yell" in the parking lot.
Secondly, even if entry had been illegal, the husband’s redress is through the courts, not with his fists.
This case came about because his defense attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that his client had the right to reasonably resist the police from making a warantless entry. The judge in that case denied the jury instruction. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it an error for the trial court to deny that instruction and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court (what we are discussing in this thread) reversed this ruling.
This is a VERY disturbing ruling, IMO. Oh, by the way, this same court decided LE officers don't even need to get a "no-knock" warrant issued when serving a warrant.
OUR VIEW: The Knock on no-knock warrants
Please read police reports and original trial testimony from LEOs, wife, etc.... not what some reporter said.
This case came about because his defense attorney wanted the jury to be instructed that his client had the right to reasonably resist the police from making a warantless entry. The judge in that case denied the jury instruction. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled it an error for the trial court to deny that instruction and ordered a new trial. The Indiana Supreme Court (what we are discussing in this thread) reversed this ruling.
Exactly, but please also remember that this was decided long ago, in rulings starting in 1942, regarding the Model Arrest Act. Lawyer was blowing smoke..... because that's all he had.
It comes down to this....Wife called 911, police are dispatched to a domestic disturbance. New domestic violence laws require LEOs to do a thorough investigation to determine if a domestic violence crime has been commited. This is for the protection of the victim(s). Husband resists investigation. Pushing an officer, or anyone for that matter, constitutes an assault. Husband was subdued using less than lethal means. Officers are allowed to to use one level of force above the level being used against them.
If the wife wasn’t physically harmed, nor in danger of being physically harmed, she should not have called 911 as there was no real emergency. If you call 911, police and/or medical services are going to show up and investigate.