Bill to allow citizens to defend home against illegal entry by police.

[MilitaryArms]

Indiana House approves bill covering police entering homes | POLL » Evansville Courier & Press

I came across this today. It seems this bill that passed was in response to a recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling that said Indiana residence do not have the right to use force against police whom they believe are entering their homes illegally.

Thoughts?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Hopefully it is signed into law. Is a person who has done nothing wrong going to stop and ask the person who broke down their door in the middle of the night if they are a police officer or not? If a police officer performs a no-knock warrant they assume the risk of being shot and killed.

 

[Jeremiah]

Its an awesome response to a bad ruling. And timely for government also.

Its just reinforces things I have said in the past about the uselessness of government. It is quite the commentary on the modern form of checks and balances.

down side, in less than a year some overzealous cop is going to try to "surprise" a meth house get shot, and the supreme court will over turn the law.

No good could have come from the ruling last year that said we can't resist an illegal entry by law enforcement. Little good may ever come from this.

 

[J_Wales]

To Jeremiah's point,

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-Jefferson

The beast needs to be put back in its cage.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Its an awesome response to a bad ruling. And timely for government also.

Its just reinforces things I have said in the past about the uselessness of government. It is quite the commentary on the modern form of checks and balances.

down side, in less than a year some overzealous cop is going to try to "surprise" a meth house get shot, and the supreme court will over turn the law.

No good could have come from the ruling last year that said we can't resist an illegal entry by law enforcement. Little good may ever come from this.

Its a horrible response that simply goes the opposite direction. The "too broad" ruling of the original decision has simply gone the other way.

This decision is being viewed by many LEOs, either rightly or wrongly, as Rep Lawson stated as "open season on law enforcement." Guys are taking this very seriously, and turning in the "kid gloves."

I myself am torn. I always handled issues of non-compliance, verbally, as often as I could; even when knowing that "putting hands" on someone would be completely justified. Now, with this decision, I'm wondering if that may be a thing of the past. I'm certainly not going to try explain a situation to a guy who thinks that my actions, concerning him, may be illegal, and that he has the right to physically resist because he reasonably believes his position is correct.

 

[abnk]

None of the news articles seem to mention the resolution number. Does anyone have it?

 

[Stschil]

There are proper justifications for no knock warrants, however, in my mind, these are few and far between. They should never be used as a substitute for solid intel and investigation. Unfortunately, it seems this has not been the case in the recent past. Officer safety is a very important objective, but ( dont flame me, guys) as a former LEO, I always believed that Public Safety and the Preservation of Individual Liberties to be paramount.
Yes, that means that sometimes, the BG gets away. But, what are the alternatives?
Loss of public trust?
Injury or death of an innocent?
Injury or death of an officer?
To me, these are not acceptable risks.

I think it sad that the legislature has to even consider a law to correct what is believed by many to be a mistake or even an overstep by the judiciary. That said, I believe that correction is needed.

A reaonable person, confronted with person(s) unknown forcibly entering thier home is going to react accordingly. This should be forefront in the minds of any LEO during the planning of any warrant service. It should be a reminder to ensure that the location they are going to enter is the correct one.
It should also remind the Judge who authorizing such action to scrutinize each request.

Added: After reading the other responses I must clarify that I do not mean to say that this Bill is the fix, just that corrective measures are needed.
As Kutnupe points out, this bill tends to reach to far in the other direction.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A reaonable person, confronted with person(s) unknown forcibly entering thier home is going to react accordingly. This should be forefront in the minds of any LEO during the planning of any warrant service. It should be a reminder to ensure that the location they are going to enter is the correct one.
It should also remind the Judge who authorizing such action to scrutinize each request.

All of this I agree with 100%. But this bill doesn't just cover unlawful entry. It has also a reasonableness standard, employed by citizens, that is undefined. It requires people that typically have no formal legal training to look at a situation and possibly make decision based on their legal knowledge and reasonableness. LEOs are trained in legal matters relating to police, and sometimes get it wrong. It would make sense that the general public would be wrong much more often.

 

[J_Wales]

None of the news articles seem to mention the resolution number. Does anyone have it?

The article is on the House vote on SB001. The house has returned the bill to the Senate with amendments.

Here is a link with details ("newspapers" seem either incapable or unwilling to give details).

Indiana General Assembly

See "Action List" for the step "reported" by the paper.

All the details of the bill are also available at the link.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I myself am torn. I always handled issues of non-compliance, verbally, as often as I could; even when knowing that "putting hands" on someone would be completely justified. Now, with this decision, I'm wondering if that may be a thing of the past. I'm certainly not going to try explain a situation to a guy who thinks that my actions, concerning him, may be illegal, and that he has the right to physically resist because he reasonably believes his position is correct.

Your proposed solution is to escalate the situation unnecessarily because you will assume the person your dealing with has both read the new law and then also believes they have a right to shoot police? Do you really think the majority of people are that blood thirsty?

I'm not sure that's the appropriate response. If anything, it will be future cases of unnecessary police force that will strengthen the citizens resolve to fight back. Keep in mind, as tough and untouchable the police may think they are, they're not. There are FAR more citizens and escalating force against them will only prompt more and more violent responses.

It's a bad idea. I say continue to do business as usual and let this get sorted out in the courts and legislature.

 

[Stschil]

All of this I agree with 100%. But this bill doesn't just cover unlawful entry. It has also a reasonableness standard, employed by citizens, that is undefined. It requires people that typically have no formal legal training to look at a situation and possibly make decision based on their legal knowledge and reasonableness. LEOs are trained in legal matters relating to police, and sometimes get it wrong. It would make sense that the general public would be wrong much more often.

I think I was adding to my previous post while you were responding.

I realized that what I wrote initially sounded like I was all for this bill. Which I'm not.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

I'm amazed at the amount of people that think we should not have the right to defend ourselves and our homes against illegal entry by anyone including LEO's?

 

[KLB]

All of this I agree with 100%. But this bill doesn't just cover unlawful entry. It has also a reasonableness standard, employed by citizens, that is undefined. It requires people that typically have no formal legal training to look at a situation and possibly make decision based on their legal knowledge and reasonableness. LEOs are trained in legal matters relating to police, and sometimes get it wrong. It would make sense that the general public would be wrong much more often.

Can you point to the section that says this?

SOURCE: IC 35-41-3-2.5; (12)SB0001.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 2.5. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.
(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
(2) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents object to the entry.
(3) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in
hot pursuit.
(4) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
(5) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.
(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions:
(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty.
(d) A person may use reasonable force, including physical force, against a person described in subsection (c)(1), if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
(e) A person may not use physical force against a law enforcement officer described in subsection (c)(2) unless the person has no adequate alternative to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
(f) A person who is justified in using force under this section is not required to retreat.

 

[serpicostraight]

when the law was passed that nobody could resist illegal entry by cops even if it meant the cops made a mistake and was at the wrong house and shot the wrong person the cops was all for it. now that the shoe is on the other foot they have thier panties in a wad and are freaking out. this sounds alot like when florida issued permits and the antis said the streets was gonna run with blood from all the shootings. sounds like the jbts are scared that they cant pull thier crap now.

 

[mrjarrell]

SOURCE: IC 35-41-3-2.5; (12)SB0001.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 2.5. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.
(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
(2) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents object to the entry.
(3) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in
hot pursuit.
(4) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
(5) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.
(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions:
(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty.
(d) A person may use reasonable force, including physical force, against a person described in subsection (c)(1), if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
(e) A person may not use physical force against a law enforcement officer described in subsection (c)(2) unless the person has no adequate alternative to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
(f) A person who is justified in using force under this section is not required to retreat.

I find nothing objectionable to this. Can't see what all the whining and threats are about.

 

[KLB]

I find nothing objectionable to this. Can't see what all the whining and threats are about.

Neither can I. I was just debating with a cousin of mine that is a LEO in IL. He was parroting the same catch phrases about open season on cops. I gave him the links, but I do not think he ever read the bill or ISC ruling that caused it to be written.

 

[Stschil]

Can you point to the section that says this?

SOURCE: IC 35-41-3-2.5; (12)SB0001.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 2.5. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens. So where is the "clear guidence" eluded to in this sentance? It certainly isn't in this bill
(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
(2) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents object to the entry.
(3) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in
hot pursuit.
(4) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
(5) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.
(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions
(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty. Who will determine this? The courts, in the end. What will be the standard of proof that the citizen will need to justify a "belief" that the officer isnt engaged in official duties?
(d) A person may use reasonable force, including physical force, against a Operson described in subsection (c)(1), if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling. Again, who is going to make the call in the end? Is every citizen going to be given a course of instruction regarding what is a lawful entry, what is not, and be required to pass a test to prove they can make that call? I don't think so. So that leave us back to the courts to seek remedies and repairations.
(e) A person may not use physical force against a law enforcement officer described in subsection (c)(2) unless the person has no adequate alternative to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
(f) A person who is justified in using force under this section is not required to retreat.

I'm not on the rah rah wagon, so hear me out.
What I understand about Kutnupe's statement is this;
The average Schmoe on the street is going to interpret this the way HE or SHE wants. The aren't train in legalese, they aren't privy to what is/isn't a lawful or unlawful entry. Many will pull out their **ithouse lawyer degree and try to force a confrontation, thinking they will be in for a big payday. All this Bill does is muddy up an already opaque pool of understanding, leading to more court cases, more peoples' lives disrupted and/or ruined, and more tax dollars wasted in effort to curry support for someone's reelection bid.

No "LAW" was passed to allow police unfettered access to residences, an opinion was layed out by the court. No law is going to fix the Court's decision effectively. Any legislative bandaid is bound to be laced with as much ambiguity as was the decision of the Court in the Case that started this.

Boot the bums off the bench, elect a judge or three that will follow the law, opine in accordance with the State Constitution, not attempt to legislate from the bench.

 

[Gabriel]

when the law was passed that nobody could resist illegal entry by cops even if it meant the cops made a mistake and was at the wrong house and shot the wrong person the cops was all for it.

Show me the text of that law. It was a court ruling, not a law.



By the way, the bill in question is in the process of being rewritten.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This law is only intended to protect people who take action against ILLEGAL no knock entries into their home.

For instance, police get wrong address and bust down the door. Home owner opens fire. The home owner would be protected against prosecution (if he survives).

IF the police get the right address with their legal no-knock warrant, and the occupants open fire, the occupants will not be legally protected from prosecution.

In either case, the law does not make it "open season" on police, anymore than it already is. It merely keeps the innocent out of prison, which is the entire point of government, is it not?

 

[Stschil]

This law is only intended to protect people who take action against ILLEGAL no knock entries into their home.

For instance, police get wrong address and bust down the door. Home owner opens fire. The home owner would be protected against prosecution (if he survives).

IF the police get the right address with their legal no-knock warrant, and the occupants open fire, the occupants will not be legally protected from prosecution.

In either case, the law does not make it "open season" on police, anymore than it already is. It merely keeps the innocent out of prison, which is the entire point of government, is it not?

If that is the case, why does it mention having permission from an adult occupant of the household?

Also, if it intended to protect against prosecution for use of deadly force, why does the bill only state reasonable force is permitted to terminate unlawful entry when in other areas of the IC it specifies "to include deadly force"?


I'm not arguing, just asking. If what you say is the intent of the bill, why is that intent not specified, or even addressed in the text?