40 Out of 50 Indiana State Senators Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Right

[Ares]

to Use Force to Resist Unlawful Police Entry

The brief supporting the petition for rehearing (http://indianalawblog.com/documents/Barnes%20amici.pdf) was filed in Barnes v. State, the decision Orin blogged about last month. The brief was also signed by 31 of the 100 Indiana House of Representatives members, but the overwhelming support in the Senate struck me as especially striking.

The brief argues that the Indiana self-defense statute, which allows the use of force “if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle,” is applicable whether the unlawful entrant is an ordinary citizen or a police officer. Neither the Barnes majority nor the dissent cited this statute, and my quick look through the briefs suggests that the parties didn’t mention it on appeal; I suspect that means they didn’t bring up at trial, either.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/08/40-out-of-50-indiana-state-senators-sign-amicus-brief-supporting-right-to-use-force-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+volokh/mainfeed+%28The+Volokh+

[Large Sarge]

I am not sure what a "brief" does to help the average citizen

this could be just a political stunt, to relieve some anger by local residents against politicians and judges afte rthey decided the fourth ammendment was optional in Indiana

[Ares]

I am not sure what a "brief" does to help the average citizen

this could be just a political stunt, to relieve some anger by local residents against politicians and judges afte rthey decided the fourth ammendment was optional in Indiana




The brief was filed with the Indiana Supreme court. I liked this section in it.

Argument
This Court 's broad declaration of "no ri ght to resist unlawful entry by police" into
a home is inconsistent with Indiana's robust self·defense statute ..............

[Ares]

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Few issues before this Court have galvanized the public's attention and concern as
the declaration in this case that "the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry
into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law." Slip op. at 6. Rehearing is
appropriate to reconsider that holding in light of lndiana's robust self-defense statute.
Indiana 's self-defense statute has long allowed citizens to use "reasonable" force if
the person "reasonably believes" such force is necessary to prevent or terminate unlawful
entry into their home. The statute was furthered broadened by overwhelming majorities
of both houses in 2006 to make clear that Hoosiers do not have a duty to retreat when
faced with unlawful entry. That statute, by its plain language, applies to unlawful entry
by police or persons pretending to be police officers, and rehearing would be helpful in
clarifying this important point of law for our citizens and trial courts. Moreover,
rehearing would allow an opportunity to reconsider the abrogation of the common law
rule in light of this important statute and the public policy considerations underlying it.
Although some state legislatures have abrogated the common law right to resist arrest,
Indiana has not. The right to resist arrest in the streets is quite different from the right to
resist unlawful entry into one's home for arrest, investigation, or any other purpose.
The public policy of this state, as embodied in the 2006 legislation, has been to grant our
citizens greater autonomy to protect themselves from unlawful incursions into their
homes.
Amici respectfully request this Court narrow its broad holding to square it with
Indiana's self-defense statute by making clear citizens retain the right to reasonably resist
unlawful police entry into their homes.

[mightymanx]

So the People will think it's ok now to resist the cops kicking in their door. More shootouts will occur escalating the US/vs Them cop mentality. It there are non-cop survivors the courts will rule against them 99.999999% of the time saying you did not meet the criteria of this law.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security it's a trap!!!

[NOOB]

So the People will think it's ok now to resist the cops kicking in their door. More shootouts will occur escalating the US/vs Them cop mentality. It there are non-cop survivors the courts will rule against them 99.999999% of the time saying you did not meet the criteria of this law.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of security it's a trap!!!





It is ok to resist people kicking in your door whatever the court says. Less shootouts will occur because if you know people will and can fight back your less likely to go kicking in doors. At least you might check a little harder to see if your at the right address before kicking in the door.