Comments on Advance Indiana™: Supreme Court Holds Firm On Barnes v. State

An illegal entry into someone's home, whether ...

2011-09-22T11:39:51.507-05:00

An illegal entry into someone's home, whether by another citizen or a police office, is not merely a civil action--it is a crime.

Mr. Welsh, your analogy of a woman being raped is ...

2011-09-22T11:37:31.053-05:00

Mr. Welsh, your analogy of a woman being raped is ridiculous. You are trying to compare a violent sexual assault to a civil action! This is the problem. There are remedies for illegal law enforcement entries into homes....shooting the officer should NOT be one of them.

I am deeply disturbed by the In. Supreme Court dec...

2011-09-21T23:12:33.820-05:00

I am deeply disturbed by the In. Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. State, as is most of Indiana, and the US.

Based on what, Reform Believer? I suppose it is p...

2011-09-21T16:26:49.044-05:00

Based on what, Reform Believer? I suppose it is possible that you have been following the Indiana Supreme Court's activities more closely than I have been, but until the Court issued its earlier Barnes decision, I had thought pretty highly of it.

I would like to see the General Assembly pass a resolution warning the Supreme Court to back off. The Court claims to be changing the common law with respect to an issue that actual legislation controls and has settled. There would be several (at least three) problems with the Court's decision, even if that legislation did not exist, but since it does exist, for the Court to claim to be changing the rule comes very close to being an act of legislation. The Court could not have been unaware of the existence of that law. The Court is not entitled to effectively amend or repeal a law on policy grounds (it did not even pretend that a constitution required this). The General Assembly should rebuke the Court, if only to defend its own constitutional "turf."

"I'm not sure how one can "reasonab...

2011-09-21T16:05:26.112-05:00

"I'm not sure how one can "reasonably resist" an unlawful entry into their home by a police officer without running the risk of committing battery on a law enforcement officer."

Bingo. Don't let Zoeller fool anyone into thinking some right for homeowners was restored by the rehearing decision. It wasn't.

There's a reason for the knock and announce ru...

2011-09-21T15:40:40.960-05:00

There's a reason for the knock and announce rule. The Supreme Court has made exceptions in exigent circumstances for entry without a warrant. You seem to be adopting the worn out advice to a woman that is about to be raped. There's nothing you can do to stop it from happening and nothing good can come from resisting it so just relax and let it happen. He's a cop so I'm just suppose to assume he has the right to break into my home and search it without first producing a warrant.

All your commentary is fine and informative, but t...

2011-09-21T14:46:57.461-05:00

All your commentary is fine and informative, but the crucial question remains: How in the hell does a person know, at the particular moment an entry is being made, that the entry is "lawful." Search warrants and arrests warrants can be issued without the knowledge of the person it pertains to. If an officer knocks and announces at 2a.m. and then kicks the door with a valid warrant; how does the subject inside know it's valid or not. They should not be allowed to resist. Law of unintended consequences would suggest that if citizens can resist because they "think" they are being unlawfully detained or searched, officers would never do it. The unproductive police officer would cause crime to skyrocket.

It was a typical opinion by the Indiana Supreme Co...

2011-09-21T07:08:04.305-05:00

It was a typical opinion by the Indiana Supreme Court. Indiana easily has the worst Supreme Court of the 50 states. The Justices are not intelligent enough to write well reasoned opinions and they are too lazy to try. They make these sweeping rulings in order to clear their docket.
A good start for reform might be to increase the number of Justices from five to seven.

Not sure whether Barnes' preserved federal con...

2011-09-20T20:27:25.953-05:00

Not sure whether Barnes' preserved federal constitutional issues that are appealable.

Does this stop here? Can this be appealed to the f...

2011-09-20T19:55:40.774-05:00

Does this stop here? Can this be appealed to the federal circuit or do we need to wait for the Indiana legislature?

Good points, Eric.

2011-09-20T14:51:32.316-05:00

Good points, Eric.

What is most surprising about this decision is tha...

2011-09-20T14:34:51.055-05:00

What is most surprising about this decision is that it ignored Barnes's arguments and failed to address the legal question at issue in the case: Can a citizen who reasonably resists unlawful police entry into his home be convicted of battery? The court's surprising answer of "Yes" in May seemed to most people to conflict with the citizen's constitutional rights and Indiana's recent Castle statute, so it would have been useful for the Court to explain more.

For example, the Court didn't address the issue of whether its earlier declaration that it was changing the common law meant that it was convicting Mr. Barnes using an ex post facto law. Nor did it mention its decision in Ray-Hayes v. Heinamann, 768 NE 2d 899 (In. 2002), which said that a new rule shouldn't be applied retroactively even in a civil case ("Dismissal of her complaint as a result of her understanding of the rule, which was shared by some respected authorities on Indiana law, is a particularly harsh result"). This obviously raises a federal question too.

Thanks, Gary. I commented on it before reading it...

2011-09-20T10:04:59.081-05:00

Thanks, Gary. I commented on it before reading it.

Now that I read it though, the reasoning is flawed. The Supreme Court is carving out an exception for police officers in the statute, an exception that the legislature never put into the statute. That's judicial activism.

Justice David's opinion picks up on that point...

2011-09-20T09:59:14.978-05:00

Justice David's opinion picks up on that point in this decision.

The statute already provides for the right of a pe...

2011-09-20T09:54:57.222-05:00

The statute already provides for the right of a person to defend themselves from an unlawful entry, even by a police officer. There is no exception for a police officer. The problem is the AG, the appellant and the court all missed the fact that we have a statute on point. None even mentioned it.

They can make the statute even more clear, but it doesn't matter much if they simply overlook the existence of the statute.