Zoeller Asks For Rehearing On Barnes v. State

Attorney General Greg Zoeller at first seemed supportive of the Indiana Supreme Court's 3-2 decision in Barnes v. State abrogating the long-recognized common law rule, bolstered by the 4th Amendment, that a person had a right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry into their home by police. In the wake of the unprecedented nationwide criticism of the decision, Zoeller is now singing a different tune. He will support the defendant's counsel's petition for a rehearing of the case in hope of narrowing the court's ruling and avoiding an appeal of the controversial decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. From the AP:

Indiana's attorney general says he supports asking the state Supreme Court to revisit its recent ruling that found people don't have the right to resist police officers who enter their homes illegally.


Attorney General Greg Zoeller said Friday that a rehearing in the case would "allow for a more narrow ruling that would continue to recognize the individual right of reasonable resistance to unlawful entry."

Last week's state Supreme Court decision upholding an Evansville man's convictions for battery on a police officer and resisting law enforcement outraged some Indiana residents and lawmakers.

Although his office represents the prosecution in criminal appeals, Zoeller says he'll support a rehearing in this "unusual case" if the Evansville man asks for one. The defendant has until June 13 to seek a rehearing.

I predict the Supreme Court will grant a rehearing in the case, and I would not be at all surprised to see at least one of the justices, Chief Justice Randall Shepard, to join the two dissenting judges, Justices Dickson and Rucker, in refashioning a narrower ruling. Justice Shepard had been absent from the court for a few weeks prior to the decision's release due to a pinched nerve.

The decision has become a political headache for Mitch Daniels' potential presidential bid because the justice who authored the controversial opinion, Steven David, is his first and only choice to sit on the high court. The choice of David had already drawn criticism from some corners because of his views opposing the U.S. military's handling of Gitmo detainees where he had been assigned to represent enemy combatants accused of plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its soldiers as a JAG officer.