Police entry bill approved by Senate, heads to House

A state bill aiming to give residents limited rights to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally has been passed by the Senate and will appear before the full House of Representatives in the next few weeks.

If enacted, SB 1 would allow residents to use whatever force is necessary to remove officers who do not properly identify themselves as police or are not on duty.

“Officers do have a tough job, and they put their lives on the line for us and they’re willing to die for us, and so what we’re attempting to do is to draw a bright line in the sand so both people know what is lawful and unlawful,” Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, said. “If a police officer oversteps the bounds, it’s called unlawful for a reason. It’s because it’s wrong and no one has the right to break the law.”

But Bloomington Police Capt. Joe Qualters said the bill could be problematic for law enforcement.

“It would seem to have the potential to create more danger for officers who are doing their jobs properly because they will come in direct conflict with a homeowner who feels they have the right to defend their home when they may not really have that right, depending on the circumstances of the call,” Qualters said.

Young, who authored the bill, said the legislation is in direct response to last summer’s Indiana Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. State of Indiana.

In the case, an Ellettsville, Ind., man resisted a police officer who entered his home after receiving a call for a domestic disturbance.

The Supreme Court ruled that a citizen never has the right to resist an officer in pursuit of an investigation. Young disagrees, citing the state’s self-defense statute for unlawful entry, which was enacted in 2006.

“It says we have the right to protect ourselves on our property, inside our car, ourselves or anyone else, from unlawful entry by anyone,” Young said. “We don’t have to back down and can use whatever force is reasonably necessary to stop the unlawful entry, up to and including deadly force.”

The bill is also intended to protect citizens from individuals pretending to be law enforcement.

But with the bill comes several exceptions. A citizen is unable to resist an officer during an investigation of suspected domestic violence, if the officer is in hot pursuit of a suspected criminal, if the officer has a warrant or if a citizen is trying to escape from police after committing a crime.

“My concern is that citizens might think they know under what circumstances they could prevent entry by law enforcement when, in fact, it might not be one of the exceptions allowed,” Qualters said. “That will cause conflict and could escalate a situation simply because a person doesn’t fully understand the law or applies it incorrectly to their particular circumstances.”

Young mentioned another incident in Carmel, Ind., last summer where an inebriated officer showed his badge to try to access a woman’s home. Young said the woman managed to keep the inebriated officer out until on-duty officers arrived.

After-the-fact court cases do not provide justice to homeowners, Young said.

“Had he gotten in, who knows what he was going to do,” Young said. “But had he beaten her, had he raped her, going to court is not really the best thing to do. What you want to do is protect yourself in the first instance.”

While the bill says a citizen may use physical force to eject an officer who is inside his or her home illegally, it has to be a last resort.

“If the only thing that is left to you is to defend your property or yourself with physical force, then you can use it,” Young said.

With bipartisan support, the bill passed its third reading in the Senate 45-5 Jan. 23. Before being enacted, the bill must pass in the House and receive Gov. Mitch Daniels’ signature.

“There is already a legal remedy for when officers might apply this concept incorrectly, and that remedy does not include the option of physically resisting and confronting law enforcement,” Qualters said.