Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Daniels to have ‘a long look’ at illegal entry bill before decision to sign or veto(IN)
thestatehousefile.com ^ | 12 March, 2012 | Lesley Weidenbener

Posted on 03/13/2012 4:41:08 AM PDT by marktwain

NDIANAPOLIS – Gov. Mitch Daniels said Monday he hasn’t decided whether he’ll sign or veto a bill that is meant to give Hoosiers more authority to block police who try to enter their homes illegally.

Senate Bill 1 passed late Friday night – just hours before lawmaker adjourned their session – despite opposition from some police organizations and concerns about whether some residents might misunderstand the legislation.

Supporters said the bill restores “law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defense.”

But Daniels said he’s not ready to talk yet about whether he’ll sign the bill into law.

“I want to have a long look at it,” Daniels said.

If signed into law, the legislation will overturn a controversial decision made last year by the Indiana Supreme Court that stripped Hoosiers of what had been seen as a common-law right to resist anyone – including law enforcement – trying to enter their homes illegally.

The House approved the bill 67-26 and the Senate passed it 38-12.

The bill will essentially expand the state’s Castle Doctrine – a law that gives homeowners the right to defend their property against invasion – to include situations involving police. But it also provides some new but limited protections against the use of deadly force against police, unless an individual fears for his life or the lives of others.

The Fraternal Order of Police opposed the bill, despite the added protection. Officers said the court’s decision actually offered them the most protection and they preferred that the legislature do nothing.

Other critics said the legislation might lead some Hoosiers to believe they have the right to defend their homes against any police entry, even those that are legal.

But Young said the legislation will only be misconstrued if critics and the media share inaccurate information.

At the time the Indiana Supreme Court made its ruling last year, Daniels said he was “puzzled” by the decision.

But during the just-ended legislative session, Daniels stayed out of the debate. Now he said he’ll need more time to consider the issue and “see if anyone has anything to say I haven’t already heard.”

Lesley Weidenbener is the managing editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; home; in
Good reporting by the student journalists.
1 posted on 03/13/2012 4:41:22 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The House approved the bill 67-26 and the Senate passed it 38-12.

How significant is the question of whether Daniels will sign? Isn't that margin enough to override a veto?

2 posted on 03/13/2012 4:56:49 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Enlighten me: under what circumstances do police have a LEGAL right to ILLEGALLY enter someone’s home? I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but that seems to be a contradiction.


3 posted on 03/13/2012 4:58:28 AM PDT by PA BOOKENDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

From what I know, Indiana is the only state where police have a RIGHT to enter a house illegally (i.e., without a warrant), thanks to a court ruling. If Daniels spends more than 30 seconds reading the abstract to the bill before signing, we have a very dangerous politician in our midst.


4 posted on 03/13/2012 5:20:10 AM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA BOOKENDS
Enlighten me: under what circumstances do police have a LEGAL right to ILLEGALLY enter someone’s home? I may not be the brightest crayon in the box, but that seems to be a contradiction.

There are a few exceptions to the requirement for a warrant:

1.Hot pusuit of a criminal, or emergencies when it is immediately required to protect life, and waiting for a warrant would endanger life.

2. When evidence of a crime is in plain view.

3. When consent is given.

Both 1 and 3 seem to apply in this case.

5 posted on 03/13/2012 5:24:40 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

bump


6 posted on 03/13/2012 5:38:11 AM PDT by Ghengis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I understand those exceptions, but by definition they’re not ILLEGAL. As you say, they are LEGAL exceptions to to the warrant requirement.


7 posted on 03/13/2012 5:42:15 AM PDT by PA BOOKENDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It sounds like Daniels was “persuaded” to look at/delay/kill the passed bill by... who knows who? Or am I just imagining things, mt?


8 posted on 03/13/2012 5:45:46 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'll "vote for an orange juice can", over Barry Obummer and another 4yrs of Hell, anyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

In Indiana, you can override a veto with a majority vote. But here, because the legislature fooled around too long in passing it, there can be no veto override because the legislature is no longer in session.

But there is also no pocket veto in Indiana, so Mitch could just let the thing become law without his signature.


9 posted on 03/13/2012 5:49:14 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PA BOOKENDS

I think we are in agreement.


10 posted on 03/13/2012 5:53:29 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BobL

You know wrong. The court decision—which was incorrect, I believe—simply provided that the home owners couldn’t resist unlawful police entry. The decision didn’t foreclose the owner from pursuing legal remedies against the police for unlawful entry.


11 posted on 03/13/2012 5:55:19 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Both 1 and 3 seem to apply in this case.

Neither apply in this case. For 1, no hot pursuit and no endangered life. For 3, neither Barnes nor his wife gave the police consent, he said no and she was no non committal. The police and courts really messed this one up.

12 posted on 03/13/2012 6:22:47 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

You are correct.

I posted a response aimed at another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2858324/posts


13 posted on 03/13/2012 6:42:54 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BobL

If anyone was wondering why they weren’t high on Daniels for President now you know.


14 posted on 03/13/2012 6:50:24 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

His decision will tell us whether he ever intends to run for POTUS. (a veto will kneecap any chances he might have)


15 posted on 03/13/2012 7:04:16 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

OK.


16 posted on 03/13/2012 7:06:46 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

“You know wrong. The court decision—which was incorrect, I believe—simply provided that the home owners couldn’t resist unlawful police entry. The decision didn’t foreclose the owner from pursuing legal remedies against the police for unlawful entry.”

You should have read some of the stuff that I read about the decision, it was A LOT WORSE than the apologists want people to know.


17 posted on 03/13/2012 7:11:21 AM PDT by BobL (I don't care about his past - Santorum will BRING THE FIGHT to Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson