6-7-2011 Indiana:
Indiana legislative leaders on Tuesday appointed a special committee to analyze and recommend possible changes to state law in light of an Indiana Supreme Court decision that Hoosiers don't have the right to resist police officers who enter
Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, will chair the committee and said he wants to determine whether the General Assembly can pass a law overturning the controversial ruling or narrowing its impact.
“The citizens of Indiana are very upset with this decision,” Steele said Tuesday after a meeting of the Legislative Council, a group of House and Senate leaders who oversee non-session legislative issues.
The council on Tuesday assigned dozens of topics to existing and new summer study committees, which will make recommendations for the 2012 session of the General Assembly. Among the issues to be examined:
* Right-to-work. The Indiana House considered so-called right-to-work legislation this year that would let employees opt out of paying dues or fees to unions, even if the groups represent them. The bill died when House Democrats walked out for five weeks in protest, but GOP leaders said then they wanted the issue studied before the 2012 session.
* Redistricting. A committee will consider whether lawmakers should turn the task of drawing new congressional and state legislative maps after each decennial Census over to an independent commission. That would require a constitutional amendment unless lawmakers retained final say over the maps.
* Sentencing changes. The Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Committee will consider whether Indiana should revamp its criminal penalties and alternative sentencing programs in light of a study that recommended changes. Gov. Mitch Daniels backs some significant changes in theft and drug sentences, but the ideas failed during the 2011 session.
* Inheritance tax. The State Tax and Financing Policy Commission will look at the advantages and disadvantages of phasing out the state’s inheritance tax.
Few of the issues that will be considered this summer have caused as much uproar as the Indiana Supreme Court’s 3-2 ruling in May concerning Hoosiers’ rights to defend their homes against illegal entry by police.
The decision came in a case in which a man was convicted of misdemeanor resisting law enforcement for shoving an officer who tried to enter his home without a warrant. The police were responding to a 911 call about a domestic disturbance.
The ruling did not expand when it’s legal for police to enter a home. Instead, it focused on the homeowner’s right to resist an illegal intrusion. In its decision, the court said that permitting homeowners to try to block police entry could lead to an escalation of the dispute that could eventually result in violence.
But critics of the decision say it has overturned hundreds of years of common law precedent and Steele said it contradicts a law the General Assembly passed two years ago that is meant to strengthen Hoosiers’ rights to protect their homes.
The reaction to the decision has been strong. Opponents have called for voters to oust Supreme Court Justice Steven David, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, by voting “no” on a retention question that will be on the 2012 ballot.
Many — including House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne — also have called for the court to reconsider and narrow the ruling.
Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, will serve on the new four-member committee charged with evaluating the court’s decision and said Tuesday that it’s appropriate for lawmakers to review the case, particularly given the passion with which Hoosiers have reacted to the ruling.
“In most complicated legal matters, there are certainly two sides,” Lanane said. “It’s a balancing act. There’s obviously a strong interest in the rights of an individual to protect one’s home. There’s also an interest, though, in law enforcement having certain abilities to breach the security of a home — if they have probable cause, if they are cognizant of the long standing recognized laws that protect our liberties.”
Steele said the four-member, bipartisan committee will begin meeting soon and should make a report to legislators this fall. ..Source.. by Lesley Stedman
June 7, 2011
Indiana legislative committee to study illegal entry ruling
May 23, 2011
Ind. Decisions - House and Senate Republican Leaders Leaders Ask Court To Reconsider Ruling
Indiana Law Blog where all documents for this case exist.5-23-2011 Indiana:
President Pro Tempore of the Senate, David C. Long, and the Speaker of the House, Brian C. Bosma, issue the following joint statement:
After reviewing the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in Barnes v. State of Indiana, we respectfully request that the Court grant a rehearing for the purpose of clarifying its decision...Source.. Indiana Law Blog
We have heard overwhelmingly from our Hoosier constituents, and legal scholars, that the language used to address the specific facts of this case may have unintentionally erased hundreds of years of common law precedent on the topic of reasonable resistance to unlawful entry.
A more narrowly-tailored opinion could preserve the long-established private property rights of our citizens while continuing to protect the safety of our law enforcement officers and citizens where unique circumstances exist, such as a domestic disturbance.
Many individual members of the General Assembly have begun work on potential legislation to restore these private property rights; if the Court did not intend to rescind this right, except in very limited circumstances where an emergency exists, a clarification from the Court would be extremely helpful.
May 22, 2011
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
May 20, 2011
Indiana Attorney General Zoeller supports rehearing in Fourth Amendment case
5-20-2011 Indiana:
Domestic violence case of Barnes v. State should be reheard in Indiana Supreme Court
INDIANAPOLIS - Today Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said he supports a rehearing of the Richard L. Barnes v. State case in the Indiana Supreme Court due to concerns that the Court ruled too broadly when it found that citizens have no right under common law to reasonably resist police unlawfully entering their homes.
"I support a rehearing of the case to allow for a more narrow ruling that would continue to recognize the individual right of reasonable resistance to unlawful entry. 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," Zoeller said.
"In supporting a rehearing, the State will continue to argue that Barnes' convictions should be upheld, but on more narrow grounds. We contend that under the circumstances, the police entry of Barnes' residence was legal: The officers responding to the 911 call sought to avoid leaving the alleged victim alone inside with the defendant after a confrontation outside. So 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," Zoeller said.
After the Indiana Supreme Court's 3-2 ruling last week upholding Richard L. Barnes' convictions for battery on a police officer and resisting law enforcement, Barnes' defense indicated publicly they would ask the Court to reconsider its ruling and conduct a new hearing. The Attorney General's Office represents the prosecution when criminal defendants appeal their convictions and sentences. Because this is an unusual case, Zoeller -- in responding to the Court's decision -- supports allowing a petition for reconsideration so that both sides can make new arguments. Zoeller will argue for keeping Barnes' convictions but scaling back the legal impact of the case upon future cases, consistent with judicial restraint.
Barnes has until June 13 to file a petition for rehearing to have the Indiana Supreme Court reconsider its decision. ..Source.. by Indiana AG Press Release
May 17, 2011
Indiana Supreme Court threatened following controversial ruling
See my comments HERE5-17-2011 Indiana:
INDIANAPOLIS | Indiana State Capitol Police are investigating harassing phone calls and email messages directed to the Indiana Supreme Court following a controversial ruling issued last Thursday.
Police would not say how many calls and messages have been received or whether they were addressed to a specific justice. But the communications are being reviewed as part of a criminal harassment investigation, police said.
Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the threats contained in the calls and emails were "primarily" directed at police officers.
"We obviously want to protect the safety of our employees and alert police to individuals who might be dangerous, so we contacted Capitol Police," Dolan said. "Because they are investigating, I am not able to give more specific information."
On Thursday, the state's high court ruled that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes -- eliminating a common law right dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.
In a 3-2 decision written by Justice Steven David, appointed to the bench last year by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, the Supreme Court said a person confronted with an illegal police entry into his home should not physically resist. Instead, the person should later sue for damages in the court system.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision was too broad and runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ..Source.. by Dan Carden
