Controversial court ruling produces more questions than answers

5-22-2011 Indiana:

INDIANAPOLIS | In his 36 years of working in law enforcement, former LaPorte County Sheriff Jim Arnold doesn't believe he ever knowingly entered a home illegally.

On the one hand, Arnold doesn't understand the furor that has erupted over the Barnes v. State ruling May 12 by the Indiana Supreme Court that Hoosiers have no right to resist a police officer who enters their home illegally because police don't go around entering homes illegally.

"I was always taught, and I taught at the academy for eight years, if there's questions, go to the court, let the court make the decision and you're always on firm ground," Arnold said.

On the other hand, as a current Democratic state senator from LaPorte, Arnold said he and his constituents aren't satisfied with the Supreme Court recommendation that a person who does have police enter his or her home illegally should sue the police.

"It's such a high-priced remedy that the average citizen — how's he going to afford it?" Arnold said. "Your counties and cities and states have kind of got bottomless pits, so to speak, to defend themselves."

At the same time, Arnold doesn't want to see a police officer killed by a potentially overzealous person trying to stop an entry he believes is illegal but is actually perfectly legitimate.

"We can't afford to have our public officials staring down the barrels of .357s or 9 millimeters when they enter a house and get shot," Arnold said.

For many Hoosiers, once they get beyond the almost-always negative reaction to the Indiana Supreme Court doing away with a common law right of self-defense that dates to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the court's ruling ends up producing more questions than satisfying answers, as Arnold discovered.

The senator said he is working to arrange a meeting with the justices to get a better understanding of what the court was trying to say.

Arnold said depending on what the justices tell him and what develops over the next few months, he'd consider signing on to potential legislation sponsored by state Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, and supported by state Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, that would have the effect of overturning the ruling.

The court may take the opportunity to clarify or limit its ruling once Richard Barnes' attorney, Erin Berger, files a promised petition for rehearing sometime before the June 13 deadline.

In an unusual move, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Friday he will support Berger's petition, not because he seeks to have overturned Barnes' convictions for shoving a police officer who entered Barnes' home when Barnes said the officer could not, but because he feels the ruling went far beyond the issues in the case.

"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," Zoeller said.

In the meantime, Hoosiers plan to let the court know what they think of the Fourth Amendment ruling by exercising their First Amendment rights to gather and speak out during a Statehouse protest rally set for 11 a.m. region time Wednesday. ..Source.. by Dan Carden