Important Indiana Code you should all know: Castle Doctrine

[sporter]

Indiana Code 35-41-3

IC 35-41-3
Chapter 3. Defenses Relating to Culpability
IC 35-41-3-1
Legal authority
Sec. 1. A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.7.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
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.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

 

[Woodrow]

Angelic trumpets sounding on high! Cannons echoing triumphantly from lofty heights! A sonorous, harmonic, beatific chorus of all saintly common damn sense permeating the hallowed meaning of these sanctified laws. Thank you English Common Law! Thank you William Blackstone! Thank you Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.! And a happy little shout out to Mitch Daniels...thanks buddy.

Oh, and a rep to you, my brother!

 

[samot]

what does this part mean ????
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

 

[tenring]

Simple, the law does not discriminate.

 

[jbombelli]

what does this part mean ????
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

To me? It means cops can claim self defense, too; just like anyone else.

 

[snapping turtle]

curtilage: Ok what the heck is that some lawyer term.

Curtilage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mainly the area outside a building like the lawn so the law protects you outside the walls of the house where some castle laws mainly deal with inside the walls.

 

[9lock]

Simple, the law does not discriminate.

That was intended as humor, right?

 

[Rob377]

curtilage: Ok what the heck is that some lawyer term.

Curtilage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mainly the area outside a building like the lawn so the law protects you outside the walls of the house where some castle laws mainly deal with inside the walls.

A finer point on that:

you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area for the area to be considered curtilage.
So, your front lawn isn't going to be considered curtilage.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

what does this part mean ????
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

It means that if for some reason an LEO is charged with a crime as a result of actions taken while performing duties as an LEO they have a right to claim self-defense. Pretty simple to understand.

 

[jedi]

A finer point on that:

you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area for the area to be considered curtilage.
So, your front lawn isn't going to be considered curtilage.

FYI when I took the Comprehension IN Gun Law offered by Guy (INGO member) he told us that Indiana Law has never "defined" what curtilage is nor is there any case law on it that he could find.

However your line of thinking is correct. Curtulage refers to your property "outisde" of your physcial house (ie. inside walls) that you use and is "private".

So if you have a patio in the backyard where you grill this is your curtilage area and the castle law will protect you. Since this area (the patio) is not easily accessable to the general public. Now if you have a patio in the front yard next to the public side walk this area is more of a grey area for curtilage since the public can very easily "step on it".

The summary that he gave us was the further away from the "inside" of your home you are the less "curtilage" defense you can use. So if you are right outside your doorsteps curtilage can be 100% but if you are at the very edge of your poroperty in the front curtilage is probably not going to be 100% since anyone can "step" on that part of your property.

 

[MrsGungho]

FYI when I took the Comprehension IN Gun Law offered by Guy (INGO member) he told us that Indiana Law has never "defined" what curtilage is nor is there any case law on it that he could find.

However your line of thinking is correct. Curtulage refers to your property "outisde" of your physcial house (ie. inside walls) that you use and is "private".

So if you have a patio in the backyard where you grill this is your curtilage area and the castle law will protect you. Since this area (the patio) is not easily accessable to the general public. Now if you have a patio in the front yard next to the public side walk this area is more of a grey area for curtilage since the public can very easily "step on it".

The summary that he gave us was the further away from the "inside" of your home you are the less "curtilage" defense you can use. So if you are right outside your doorsteps curtilage can be 100% but if you are at the very edge of your poroperty in the front curtilage is probably not going to be 100% since anyone can "step" on that part of your property.

what would that say about inside a fenced yard with padlocks on the gate?

 

[jedi]

what would that say about inside a fenced yard with padlocks on the gate?

It is easy for the general public to get into said area?

In your case nope since it's fenced in and has a lock on the gate so the curtilage portion is stronger than a fenced in area with no padlock which would be stronger then justed a "yard" (no fence no gate).

It basically boils down to the "degrees" per say of what a reasonable person would consider an area of your home that is private. (IE. your back yard fenced in with a 8' high wooden fence would be private vs you cooking on in your front yard so the entire neighboorhood can see you and all the cars passing by.)

IANAL BTW

 

[Rob377]

FYI when I took the Comprehension IN Gun Law offered by Guy (INGO member) he told us that Indiana Law has never "defined" what curtilage is nor is there any case law on it that he could find.

However your line of thinking is correct. Curtulage refers to your property "outisde" of your physcial house (ie. inside walls) that you use and is "private".

So if you have a patio in the backyard where you grill this is your curtilage area and the castle law will protect you. Since this area (the patio) is not easily accessable to the general public. Now if you have a patio in the front yard next to the public side walk this area is more of a grey area for curtilage since the public can very easily "step on it".

The summary that he gave us was the further away from the "inside" of your home you are the less "curtilage" defense you can use. So if you are right outside your doorsteps curtilage can be 100% but if you are at the very edge of your poroperty in the front curtilage is probably not going to be 100% since anyone can "step" on that part of your property.

It is true that curtilage is a poorly defined concept, but not because they've never defined it. They have settled on a definition, but its not a bright line, black letter kind of definition.

In Indiana, there are at least 73 Indiana cases that deal with what is curtilage and what is not. There are hundreds more federal cases, many of which are relied on by Indiana Courts in defining curtilage for Fourth Amendment purposes. Basically, the test is what I posted above. Geographical proximity is part of it, but not the only part.

"A home's 'curtilage' is the area outside the home itself but so close to and intimately connected with the home and the activities that normally go on there that it can reasonably be considered part of the home." United States v. Pace, 898 F.2d 1218, 1228 (7th. Cir. 1990). We have not engaged in "curtilage" analysis in this opinion primarily because to determine whether the garbage was within or without the curtilage merely restates the ultimate Fourth Amendment standard of the reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy in a given area. "Curtilage is a descriptive--rather than a prescriptive--term in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Curtilage cannot define a defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy when the very same reasonable expectation is the basis for defining curtilage in the first place." United States v. Redmon, 138 F.3d 1109, 1124-25 (Coffey, J., concurring).

State v. Neanover, 812 N.E.2d 127, 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)


The best way to put in common sense terms, if it's pretty close to the house and blocked from public view enough that you wouldn't feel uncomfortable dropping trou there, it is probably curtilage.

 

[The Spud]

what does this part mean ????
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

In other words, just because the LEO is a defendant in a criminal prosecution, he/she does not surrender their right to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

 

[JeremySS]

Thanks for posting this. It is great to live in a relatively free state where you can protect your family

 

[finity]

A finer point on that:

you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that area for the area to be considered curtilage.
So, your front lawn isn't going to be considered curtilage.

Where does it say that?

The IN Appeals court defined curtilage as an area around the home which is connected to "the conduct of family affairs and for carrying on domestic purposes."

Using your definition of "curtilage" you would not be able to use deadly force to prevent an attack by someone who has not yet entered your home if you don't have a privacy-type fence around your yard. You would be required to wait until they have completely entered your home before DF would be justified to PREVENT the attack.

From US v Gorman:

"At common law, curtilage was the area outside the walls of a home from which theft at night amounted to burglary, United States v. Van Damme, 48 F.3d 461, 464 (9th Cir. 1995). More recently, the curtilage of a home sometimes has been used to define the area in which it is not necessary to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. See e.g., McNutt v. State, 121 So. 432, 434 (Ala. 1929); State v. Jackson, 87 S.E.2d 681 (S.C. 1955)."

I don't disagree that ONE factor in determining curtilage is the person's expectation of privacy but I don't think it is (or should be) the deciding requirement. Your front lawn could be considered curtilage if it is fairly obvious where the "public access" routes are to your front door. If someone leaves your front walkway to your front door or your front porch & walks close by your house around to the back yard through your lawn then they could be said to have violated your privacy. That would reasonably make that area in your front yard "curtilage".

If you use your front yard as the area of your property around your home where you perform various outdoor domestic duties then that would also be considered curtilage.

From Trimble v State of IN

"The doctrine of curtilage is grounded in the peculiarly strong concepts of intimacy, personal autonomy and privacy associated with the home. The home is fundamentally a sanctuary, where personal concepts of self and family are forged, where relationships are nurtured and where people normally feel free to express themselves in intimate ways. The potent individual privacy interests that inhere in living within a home expand into the areas that enclose the home as well. The backyard and area immediately surrounding the home are really extensions of the dwelling itself. This is not true simply in a mechanical sense because the areas are geographically proximate. It is true because people have both actual and reasonable expectations that many of the private experiences of home life often occur outside the house. Personal interactions, daily routines and intimate relationships revolve around the entire home place. There are compelling reasons, then, for applying Fourth Amendment protection to the entire dwelling area."

 

[Rob377]

Where does it say that?

...."

In just about every Indiana case decided on the matter.

Notably the one you cite

The protection afforded [**6] by the Fourth Amendment extends to the curtilage in order to protect personal and familial privacy in an area that is physically and psychologically linked to the intimacy of the home. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 213. But there is no Fourth Amendment protection for activities or items that, even if within the curtilage, are knowingly exposed to the public. Katz, 389 U.S. at 351; Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 213 (observation of defendant's curtilage not a violation of the Fourth Amendment even where the area observed was surrounded by a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence when observations took place from publicly accessible airspace).

In this case, Butchie was tied up outside in an open yard where anyone who cared to observe his condition could easily do so. The fact that Butchie happened to be inside his doghouse at the particular moment that Barger walked by is irrelevant. Whether the dog is inside the doghouse or exposed to public view is subject to the dog's whims, so there can be no legitimate expectation of privacy in the appearance of a dog that has been tied up in an open area and available to public view.

Same thing at the SCOTUS level.

the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and that the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself. 466 U.S., at 180. We identified the central component of this inquiry as whether the area harbors the "intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Ibid. (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)).
...
Drawing upon the Court's own cases and the cumulative experience of the lower courts that have grappled with the task of defining the extent of a home's curtilage, we believe that curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area [***335] is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.

US v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)


i.e. if it's pretty close to your house and you wouln't feel totally uncomfortable dropping trou there, it's probably curtilage.


and finally, to address this

Using your definition of "curtilage" you would not be able to use deadly force to prevent an attack by someone who has not yet entered your home if you don't have a privacy-type fence around your yard. You would be required to wait until they have completely entered your home before DF would be justified to PREVENT the attack.

Not quite. We've got a good statute here in IN.

The attacker of a dwelling need not fet inside the threshold.

(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

moreover, much like the castle that the law get it name from, attackers need not penetrate the walls for their actions to be considered an attack.

b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
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.

So, if someone is kicking down your front door, or trying to come through the window, even if you don't have a privacy fence, the law is on your side.

Nowhere does it say that they need to be in the house. As written, they could be in the street doing a drive-by, and legally speaking you can use deadly force to terminate that attack.

 

[Bunnykid68]

curtilage: It means shoot them dead in your yard, do not place a weapon in their hand, or try to drag them into your home.

First things first, protect you and your own at all cost from criminals, you will just have to worry about the consequences once everyone is still alive and well.