Top Indiana Court Reaffirms Opinion that Brought Death Threats, with Clarifications

The Indiana Supreme Court has reaffirmed a controversial opinion that found homeowners have no right to resist unlawful police entry, with added clarification.

The original opinion was intended to state that a homeowner may not use violence to resist unlawful police entry, the court says in an opinion (PDF) released on Tuesday. It does not revoke the doctrine allowing homeowners to use force to resist unlawful entry by others. Nor does it alter Fourth Amendment protections. Among the publications covering the new ruling are the Indianapolis Star, NWI.com, the Evansville Courier & Press, and the Indiana Daily Student.

The court had received death threats after issuing the first opinion in May. Requests for a rehearing were filed by the defendant, Richard Barnes, Attorney General Greg Zoeller, and some state lawmakers. “The petitions for rehearing, advanced by thoughtful people, have convinced us that the appropriate course is to grant rehearing and speak further on the law of this case,” the court explained.

The issue had reached the court when Barnes appealed his conviction for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. Barnes had requested a jury instruction that he had a right to get physical with police if he believed their attempt to enter his residence was legally unjustified. Police had come to Barnes' home after receiving a domestic violence call from his wife.

“The central question we addressed earlier was whether the defendant was entitled to have the jury told that the common law right to defend one’s home against invasion was a defense against Indiana’s statute that criminalizes violence against police officers acting in the course of their duties.”

Zoeller had argued that the castle doctrine, which allows the use of force to prevent unlawful entry of a person’s home, should remain intact, but not in cases of violent acts against police. “We deem the attorney general to have restated the central thesis of our resolution of this case,” the supreme court said. “We hold that the castle doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer.” The legislature can change the law if it disagrees, the court said.

The opinion added that the trial and appeals courts did not agree with Barnes' contention that police had violated the Constitution by seeking to enter the home. In any event, the court said, its opinion does not change Fourth Amendment protections.

“We also emphasize that this holding does not alter, indeed says nothing, about the statutory and constitutional boundaries of legal entry into the home or any other place,” the court wrote. “Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The case is Barnes v. State.