Should it be legal for Indiana citizens to use force to prevent police from entering their homes?

Indiana lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow Indiana residents “to use force to prevent police from entering their homes in a handful of instances.”

The legislation is being written in response to a 2007 case in which Indiana resident Richard Barnes shoved a police officer against the wall when the officer attempted to enter his home without his permission or a warrant. The officers on the scene tased
Barnes, who was later convicted by a jury of his peers for misdemeanor battery, resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct.  

Barnes appealed the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, and the Court held there is “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

Lawmakers on a select committee in the Indiana General Assembly made a recommendation to carve out exceptions in which the use of force by civilians to resist entry would be acceptable.

While we appreciate the lawmakers’ attempt to protect our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, we do not believe that the blanket legalization of the use of force against a police officer, in any circumstance, is the right way to approach the problem.

First and foremost, defining acceptable violence sounds like an invitation for individuals with a grudge against the police to try to create circumstances in which they could legally attack an officer. Almost certainly, we would see an increase in violent confrontation between civilians and officers because of this law, whether or not the circumstances were legally acceptable.

This isn’t to say that we do not support our Fourth Amendment right. We certainly do.
That said, we feel the current method, which prevents the use of any evidence acquired in an unwarranted search in a court of law, is acceptable.

Nevertheless, we believe if an officer sees a potentially dangerous situation developing, he should be able to use his discretion to intervene. If it turns out that such an entry is inappropriate, then the wronged individual can take the matter to the courts, as Barnes did.

Barnes was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and the Supreme Court ruled against his appeal, as well.

While it is never appropriate to advocate for the status quo simply because it is the status quo, in this case, it seems preferable to the proposed alternative.