It is no surprise that in a moot exercise in futility, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed its own controversial determination in Barnes v. State from earlier this summer. (See Indiana Supreme Court Errs Heavily in Favor of Law Enforcement this Week in a Pair of Surprising Decisions, Indiana General Assembly Takes Quick Action to Amend Court’s Bad Decision, Police: “Rest Assured, Rulings Will Have No Effect”)
The court, after a futile rehearing, reached the same determination it reached back in May. (See Northwest Indiana Times article, “Indiana Supreme Court rejects claim of right to resist police entry into home” 21 Sept 2011).
Abolishing a well established defense known as the “Castle Doctrine”, the Court determined that, “a man’s home is his castle” is no longer sacred. Our Forefathers must be spinning in their graves.
In response to the expected decision, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said, “The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling today means that individuals still have the common law right of reasonable resistance to an unlawful entry, though there is never justification for committing battery against a police officer.”
Well aside from directly contradicting his first statement in reaction to the original hearing, Zoeller’s comment makes absolutely no sense. Let’s break it down for a moment.
As a criminal defense attorney in Northwest Indiana, I am all too familiar with this particular issue. From my own experience defending criminal actions, most “Battery on a Police Officer” charges stem from wholly egregious acts such as “brushing up against an officer’s uniform or clothing,” “accidentally stumbling into,” or “touching” an officer. (These were actual excerpts taken from actual probable cause affidavits in actual cases in Northwest Indiana.)
So, Mr. Zoeller, your statement sounds wonderful. The Castle Doctrine is well intact, and our police officers are safe when making home entries–even illegal ones. We must live in a land of rainbows and unicorns.
The reality of this quandary is, what does “reasonably resist” mean if in the real world “touching” or “brushing up against an officer’s uniform” constitute batteries upon a police officer? So, I guess Mr. Zoeller is right: you CAN reasonably resist so long as you don’t “touch” or “brush up against” the police officer conducting the unlawful entry. Sounds reasonable to me…