The Indiana Supreme Court is in a bad position with its now infamous Barnes vs. State of Indiana ruling, which overturned hundreds of years of common law on illegal police entry into homes.
Now that the defendant is seeking a rehearing, the court is faced with two bad choices:
•Reaffirm its very questionable ruling.
•Reverse it and convey the impression that the court is bowing to political pressure.
And that pressure may be unprecedented for modern day Hoosier jurisprudence. Nearly half of the General Assembly – 71 of 150 members – signed a petition asking the court to rehear the case. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller publicly disagreed with the court’s ruling – and he won the case.
The ruling has accomplished the almost impossible task of uniting liberals and conservatives in criticizing the court. Some critics have already said they plan to mount a campaign against Justice Steven David – the newest member of the court – when he is on the ballot for a yes-no retention vote next year, a political maneuver rarely seen on an appreciable scale in the state.
Even Gov. Mitch Daniels questioned the ruling, noting its conflict with the “stand your ground” law that makes clear property owners’ rights to defend their homes from unlawful entry.
Granted, some members of the legislature criticized the court in 2003 for a ruling that special legislation affecting a single community is unconstitutional, but that ruling didn’t raise the public’s hackles.
I still don’t understand why Chief Justice Randall Shepard directed the court’s rookie to write such a significant ruling when both Shepard and the highly regarded Justice Frank Sullivan were also in favor of David’s position.
Scheibenberger upheld
An Indiana Court of Appeals judge made clear a distinction between an Allen County case it decided last week and the Barnes decision. The Appeals Court upheld former Allen Superior Court Judge Kenneth Scheibenberger’s decision to toss statements in a drug case against Gerald Foster.
Police went to Foster’s home last year to arrest him on initial charges and without a warrant, which often occurs. But one officer used subterfuge to gain entry into Foster’s house after he refused to let police in, falsely claiming police were investigating a 911 hang-up. Scheibenberger ruled that statements Foster made after police used a ruse to arrest him were inadmissible.
“I concur, but feel it is important to distinguish the facts before us from those in Barnes v. State,” Appeals Court Judge Melissa May wrote. The “decision in Barnes does not control the case before us. Instead, Foster addresses the nature of the relief available when the State violates the Fourth Amendment.” The statement seemed to lend support to the Supreme Court’s Barnes ruling, which the justices justified by noting all forms of civil relief available when police enter unlawfully.
