Posted on 05/21/2011 5:40:57 AM PDT by John W
INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller on Friday joined the chorus of Hoosiers protesting a controversial Fourth Amendment ruling recently decided by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Zoeller released a statement saying he will support a rehearing of the case due to concerns that the court ruled too broadly when it found citizens have no right under common law to reasonably resist police who unlawfully enter their homes.
The Barnes v. State ruling came last week and was the first major opinion penned by Justice Steven David – Gov. Mitch Daniels’ appointment.
“We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David wrote. “Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.”
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
The court ruled that the centuries-old standard no longer applies because if police wrongly enter a home, residents can sue them and, unlike hundreds of years ago, get quick bail, have a quick court date and not be tortured in jail.
Since the decision was released, attorneys, newspaper editorials and Hoosiers of all sorts have come out against the ruling. A rally protesting the decision is scheduled for Wednesday at the Statehouse.
Court officials have also acknowledged boosting security after receiving numerous harassing phone calls and emails.
The case involved a Vanderburgh County man who was arguing with his wife while moving out of their apartment. The man, Richard Barnes, yelled at police, who followed him back into his apartment. Barnes told police they could not enter, and he struggled with an officer who ignored him. Barnes was later charged and convicted of battery.
Critics of the decision say the court – in a 3-2 ruling – tossed out hundreds of years of common law when it could have focused more narrowly, noting police in the case had probable cause to investigate a domestic abuse allegation and the wife inferred her permission for them to enter the home.
Zoeller said he will argue for keeping Barnes’ convictions but scaling back the legal impact of the case upon future cases, consistent with judicial restraint.
“In our brief and argument to the Indiana Supreme Court last fall, my office did not advocate for the type of ruling the court issued last week. I believe a reconsideration is appropriate. A rehearing and a new ruling would afford the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify any misperceptions regarding people’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches and seizures – even against unlawful entry by police,” said Zoeller, a Republican.
“While there is no right to commit battery against police, I believe the individual has the right to shut the door, stand his ground and communicate with police without engaging in an altercation. In balancing the perils of domestic violence with respect for law enforcement, I will continue to advise our police clients to respect people’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
Barnes’ defense attorney also is seeking a rehearing, which must be filed by June 13.
Meanwhile, a Fourth Amendment expert at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington said the decision was sound.
“The Supreme Court’s decision means that we can’t allow people to take the law into their own hands,” professor Craig Bradley said. “The law should not allow people to assault police whenever they claim that they ‘thought’ the entry was illegal.”
He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.”
Under this ruling what recourse is there if an innocent person loses their life? /S
The state might conclude they are not responsible damaged property in the course of their work and all citizens are in reality property of the state. One need look no further than the right of estate in which the state can take away all property or most of it upon ones passing. /S /S
The problem is this is a decision that might make some sense in Sharia law but not in America. The fact that the judge who wrote the decision had more than his fair share of contact with proponents of Sharia law is troublesome in the extreme.
That one can defend one’s home from unlawful entry is not a right the State can grant: it comes from the Creator. The State’s attempt to intervene in thwarting this inalienable right will not be tolerated nor respected by the citizens, who will resist with violence in individual cases, and at the ballot box.
Power has corrupted the judges, politicians and police. Their audacity is increasingly turning this country into a tense us-versus-them situation, but we surround them.
This might haunt Mitch Daniels.
There is no overreaction on this issue, the court did not limit it’s ruling to the specific case, it used the case to further erode 4th amendment rights. It should tell you something when even the government’s own attorney says the court went too far.
“He went on to say that “if the defendant thought the police officer’s entry into his home was illegal, he has plenty of opportunities to raise that issue through the court system. The risk of harm to both the police and the defendant is too great to allow people to take matters into their own hands.””
I’d say that given the risk of harm to both the police and defendant, the police need to revisit their policy on home entries that are likely to get a violent response from an innocent citizen that isn’t going to take this kind of crap.
I could care less about this ruling as I have no reason to expect police to enter my home and must assume it’s a home invasion robbery. I will deal with the matter appropriately. If the police do need to enter my home, they will have a warrant or they are not coming in.
They will ask you "show us the crime scene" and you will demand a warrant.
Sure you will.
Your insurance company is not going to pay your claim if you don't let the cops take a look.
The central issue here is that the ruling addressed an issue not before the court...and got it wrong. The police had the right to enter in this particular case, but not for the reasons stated in the decision. The court did not need to consider the Fourth Amendment issue, since the wife had given permission.
The average citizen may misinterpret the case, and nobody gets hurt. Not so much when the average LEO misinterprets the ruling.
That vetoed bill would've changed it for just one county and also created a new circuit court. He also saw it as a Democrat power grab.
We have elected judges in CA. It's no great thing. Voters know nothing about them. They collude to avoid saying anything useful by hiding behind an "ethics" code. The press show no interest in vetting them thus the trial lawyer favorites typically prevail thanks to union run GOTV operations.
In Indiana, newly appointed picks do come up for a retention vote after their first two years. Daniels pick should be up in Nov. 2012.
Finally, the minority were 1R, 1D appointees, the majority 2R, 1D appointees.
Won’t say it can’t happen but the likelyhood of someone choosing my house to rob is very slim. There are much, much easier targets to go after. Not to mention safer...
Like they say CROOKS ARE STUPID.
Yes they are which is why I have several layers of security including a pack of land sharks to warn off the stupids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.