FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Top News

Ind. Bill On Resisting Police Moves Forward

March 12, 2012  | 

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. CC_Flickr: pjern
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. CC_Flickr: pjern

An Indiana bill laying out when citizens can use force against law enforcement officers has reached Gov. Mitch Daniels' desk, after passing the Senate late Friday.

Earlier this month, the House passed Senate Bill 1, which aims to overturn a controversial State Supreme Court decision in May that ruled people have no right to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes.

Law enforcement groups have said the bill could give people justification for attacking officers, reports WLKY.


Ind. Bill Could Bring Open Season on Cops

Comments (58)

Displaying 1 - 58 of 58

Presley @ 3/12/2012 4:47 PM

This is absolutley rediculous. If the governor signs this bill every cop in the state shoups quit the same day. The legislators in this state should be ashamedand anyone who voted yes should be recalled or voted out of office ASAP

Bill @ 3/12/2012 4:50 PM

There is a very simple solution to this. Instead of worrying so much about the bill. Worry more about being sure you don't enter someones home ILLEGALLY. No one else can do it, why should the cops?

Rick @ 3/12/2012 4:53 PM

All this will do is make the police more careful about who's home they are entering when serving warrants. Cops aren't in danger unless they are breaking down the wrong door; much like the FBI when they used a chain saw recently and barged into the wrong residence.

Bob @ 3/12/2012 4:57 PM

This wise bill merely reinforces that we are a free people. Citizens have the right and obligation to resist ANYONE who illegally invades their home. As usual, the doomsayers have no basis in fact. If LEOs follow existing laws and treat homeowners with the respect guaranteed by our constitution, they have nothing to worry about. But break those laws and all bets are off. That's as it should be. Too many innocent civilians have been killed by LEOs, especially SWAT, who invade wrong addresses or use poor judgement in invading homes. No one should get a free pass to kill, injure, or terrorize innocent citizens.

Justice Pro @ 3/12/2012 4:59 PM

If a LEO does this isn't he subject to US Code 41-1983?

Glen @ 3/12/2012 5:00 PM

Bill, there are civil remedies. This bill will give anti-cop people and criminals an excuse to open up on the police and make up an excuse later.

Indiana is only known as Illinois' neighbor. Other than that, they have nothing special which other regions would know them for, well, other than the Indy 500. Police groups should cancel any and all seminars, trade shows, conventions, training, et cetera until the law is no longer on the table and all who voted for it are no longer in office. Fire fighter groups would be good if they showed solidarity and did the same.

ProudPD @ 3/12/2012 5:01 PM

I don't understand what the problem is. This bill concerns situations where police have to enter private residences.


Whatever is going on - whatever the allegation is - Just keep moving along. When the public is tired of crimes being committed in private residences and it affects the neighborhood, you can bet they'll recall that bill lickety split. Jacka**es who passed this bill should be forced to reside next to "alleged" drug houses.

Smith @ 3/12/2012 5:03 PM

99.99 % of the time the police are there for true legal purposes. All this bill does is give every real criminal out there a way to say " I believed the warrant was illegal that's why I shot and killed the police man!" the police man that was there doing his job and following the law unlike the criminal the warrant is for. Just going to get good cops killed and lots of other people killed in the process that think they believe it was illegal at the time. Even though it wasn't. Illegally entering a home= big payout for victims. Valid lawful entry and someone gets killed cause they didn't think the police should be in their house, can't come back from the dead.

David Chasteen @ 3/12/2012 5:08 PM

Here in lies the problem. This legislation is going to give people without the experience of interpretating the law the oppurtunity to do it on the spot ie; as the police are pulling up to their house. What kind of situation will be created when the police arrive at a location for a domestic violence call and they are met in the driveway by one of the participants who displays the intent to use force because he feels that the police have no legal right to be there because the law says he/she can. A shoot out is what will happen. That is the situation this bill is going to create.

Smith @ 3/12/2012 5:17 PM

Seems like people think that everyone follows the law and does the right thing. Unfortunately criminals don't think like the average law abiding citizen. They will just use this law to get away with hiding more drugs and crimes in homes and further get away with shooting at the police. All they would have to show is that they believed the entry to be illegal, won't matter if it is legal or not and when someone's dead that's a pretty crappy time to say oh it was legal, sorry my bad. Besides it is not like police are going in to murder people. It's to arrest them. Police can't just shoot any ol criminal that want what gives the criminals the right to do that to us. This is taking the castle doc To far. I'm all for lethal for against criminal intruders that dare break in my home. If its the police we will figure it out when it's over and if they were wrong at least everyone is alive and I would have a new bank account

Andrew @ 3/12/2012 5:24 PM

So someone who doesnt know the law thinks a cop is entering his home illegally.. next thing you know there will be irresponsible cop killers.

wlh @ 3/12/2012 5:27 PM

An example: son is dealing drugs out of a house. Dad doesn't know. Police show up with a search warrant. Dad, knowing he's done nothing wrong, shoots the police entering his home. He is acting under this law even though the police had a legitimate right to enter.

rich @ 3/12/2012 5:29 PM

The problem is that the average person doesn't know the law and want he thinks is an illegal entry may in fact be legal,then what?

Leonard J. Mather @ 3/12/2012 5:34 PM

This law is designed to create problems. I am speaking not as a LEO, but as a Forensic Psychologist who has worked with the Prosecution. It is apparently the work of Wussies and Libs who are against the LEO's best friend--Profiling, as an example. This law will help money coming into the ACLU and will make Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton celebrate.

Russ @ 3/12/2012 5:40 PM

Great in theory... So, we are relying on citizens to decide what THEY THINK is "legal" the same people that get pulled over for committing a traffic offense and say "Ive done nothing wrong, this is bs, shouldn't you be out arresting real criminals"? The police need to be held accountable AND DO by the courts for illegal entry. Using FORCE AGAINST a police officer who is in the home, they believe to be legally is ridiculous. If I enter your home NOT AS A CITIZEN AS A POLICE OFFICER, people forget there IS a difference. If you use force on me, I will subdue you with whatever force necessary to stop the resistance. Let 10,000 cops, all walk and see what the police actually did... when they are not there to do it.

Jeremy @ 3/12/2012 6:02 PM

There are self defense statutes in place that give people the right to defend themselves. Most people who watch TV think they know the law and think they know the rules when in fact they really don't. TV is not reality. Officers should not enter people's homes unlawfully and should be held accountable if they do. We are held to a higher standard than others because we do know the law. In such, there is a legal system where people can file suit against the officer, department, and city to hold them accountable when that happens. This is where it should be dealt with, not by allowing citizens to use force when they THINK it is unlawful. This will give people a unexcusable defense to use force against law enforecement officers and in return more people will be hurt as a consequence.

Scott @ 3/12/2012 6:24 PM

Whatever. The police will continue doing their thankless job just like they always have. You continue tying our hands and we'll figure out how to continue putting the bad guys in jail. BTW, I'd make sure each and every citizen in Indiana understands what a use of force continuum is. The cops sure know it and no matter what the state leadership says it governs our rules of engagement.

[email protected] @ 3/12/2012 6:28 PM

Uh,Rick, "cops aren't in danger unless they are breaking down the wrong door"?? Damn, glad you cleared that up. I guess we can all leave the Second Chance at home now. Thanks!! P.S. Dumb Law.

Bob @ 3/12/2012 6:33 PM


The problem with your argument is that all too often, the innocent citizens are dead or severely wounded, leaving only those who invaded the wrong home to "sort it out". The innocent Marine who never fired a shot but was killed in Arizona, the dead 7-year-old girl in Detroit are just two that come immediately to mind. If the only thing that this law accomplishes is making LE check, double check, and triple check their information before invading a citizen's home, then that's a great thing. In the middle of the night, in the dark, rudely awakened from a deep sleep by invaders crashing into the home of someone who knows that they have no reason to think the police would ever invade their home because they are innocent citizens, it's natural that their first assumption is that criminals have invaded their home to do harm to them and their family. The situation isn't about interpreting the law in a split second. It's about defending one's family from unknown invaders. This isn't Stalinist Russia. Get over it.

Dave @ 3/12/2012 6:48 PM

So here is a scenario for you. When the entry to the home is occurring, how do you know whether it is legal or not at that moment? When law enforcement executes a warrant you have no idea if it is valid at that time especially when it is unannounced. Now you give people the right to use force if they believe it is an illegal entry. Now what happens is more people are going to get hurt or killed because they resist the police. If an entry to the home is illegal then you seek civil remedies and end up being rich. I'd rather get paid then shot because of an idiotic law.

Chauncey @ 3/12/2012 7:10 PM

The issue is citizens don't understand the duties of Law Enforcment, they believe as has been posted that every 3 search warrants police there is an illegal or accidental home breached. Swat enters to take people into custody safely, but Tv and media portrays Swat as shooter and killers. Criminals believe the police are entering their homes illegally when a warrant is served, what this bill will do is to give citizens the ability to make a court decision without all of the evidence. What if a son was selling drugs from his mothers house without her knowledge. She would then be able to use force on police in her mind..... If cops stop the wrong person the investigation should conclude an apology and payment of damages not a fight or exchange of force.

Matt @ 3/12/2012 7:31 PM

Guys, guys, guys... Calm down. This law is not about Legal entrances or Legeal persuits - it is about ILLegal entrances but mose specifically ILLegal use of force against citizens - it is about officers acting OUTSIDE THE LAW, not officers enforcing it and abading by it. How can you possibly be against that? Are you planning on shooting up a few housefulls of innocent civilians like that soldier in Kandahar? Because that is Exactly the scenario this law is addresses!

CHRISTOPHER HAYCOX @ 3/12/2012 7:36 PM

Why was this legislation even drafted? Are there truly that many illegal entries by the Indiana Police? What city or county spearheaded this legislation? HOW MUCH PORK IS ATTACHED TO THIS BILL? I pray for all of our law enforcement officers. May your weapons never misfire and may you double tap the criminal!

DAVID BAGLEY @ 3/12/2012 7:38 PM

How about the Police Officer who enter's the residence under good faith?

Mark Zimmerman @ 3/12/2012 7:45 PM

I find it strange that politicians are trying to change a Supreme Court Decision. Smacks of liberal politics. Anyway, how are the criminals supposed to know that the house was entered illegally. So, if the police come to my house I can kill them because they committed a technical violation. Really nice. I would never be a police officer in Indiana and hope that officers stop policing. I feel sorry for the good citizens who get preyed upon and will get no justice because the police will be too afraid to take action. Just drive and wave, just drive and wave. It worked in LA until the citizens rebelled.

gp cobb @ 3/12/2012 7:52 PM

Bill, You have the winning post IMO, you caught the key word, Illegal.

DAVID BAGLEY @ 3/12/2012 7:56 PM

This law could effect everyone in uniform I am not talking about just Law Enforcement. Imagine a First Responder, Paramedic, Firefighter, etc, entering a residence in a emergency situation, the occupant does not perceive the emergency, see's a Badge, tunnel vision. I have worked a bank robbery where the suspect was exiting the bank, and shoots a EMT. The interview revealed it was because they saw a badge. Public safety personnel need to voice thier concern over this.

J @ 3/12/2012 8:11 PM

As a retired cop, I both agree and disagree with this bill. It would be helpful to be able to actually read the bill to see what it says. I can see in some circumstances where people legitimately don't know its the cops entering their home. Unfortunately it does happen and just like the cops, they have to react instantly at times to defend their families from a perceived threat. I can see where these people should be protected, just like cops are. On the other hand, just about every criminal will try to insist that every search warrant is illegal and this will turn into a situation where there will almost always be shoot outs. The cops will have to resort to being even more tactical than before to get the upper hand on the criminal before he has a chance to react now that in the criminals mind he is justified to resist. I am all for the rights of the people and I swore to defend their rights, but why punish all officers with the threat of death, when any possible victims can sue the department for an obscene amount of money after the fact? Almost all warrants are served in accordance with the laws. It may not be perfect, but its better than the alternative which is that search warrants will no longer be served and the criminal element will grow in strenght because they know the cops will no longer follow them into their homes.

Russ @ 3/12/2012 8:24 PM

Oh, I apologize. I forgot NCIS, CSI, LAW & Order / SVU, Judge Judy, Joe Brown, Blue Bloods. Cops..... all those shows make people professional's in those professions. And the person that mentioned, then just make people come outside and when they are tired of crimes going on inside they will let the cops in... What about the vicitim's? Domestics... we as a nation tried that, it was called Pre 1990 Domestic situations where the police would be met by usually the guy at the door saying Oh things are fine then would just leave. I say that after being 6 and watching it happen. Mom has a denture partial from that incident. GREAT IDEA YOU HAD THERE to just let the cops go away or wait outside... And citizens determining this law is about as accurate as them taking a 12 hour CCW course to carry a handgun as a citizen using that to become a police officer.

DaveSAM25G @ 3/12/2012 11:13 PM

This is a very slipperly slope to be sliding down and could add more names to wall in Washington...

Random @ 3/13/2012 12:47 AM

Ser Robert Peal once said the Police area just citizens that area paid to due their duty full time. If one feels entitled to break the laws they are paid to enforce. They are worse than any criminal that does the same. They have not only violated common decency, they have proven they are with honor entirely. A criminal may not have agreed to follow society laws, but a Police person has voluntarily.

Ken @ 3/13/2012 2:38 AM

Quite frankly, most people police deal with are idiots and I am sure will not understand when police do have a right to enter there homes and America is the old wild west, everybody's armed in 2011.

Tim @ 3/13/2012 2:59 AM

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.

This is a very poorly thought out solution to a perceived problem. It will end up in the tragedy of more dead officers and civilians. I can't tell you the number of times I have been at the front doors of houses when I COULD lawfully make entry without permission found myself arguing or having to use physical restraint on someone trying to stop me. Indiana has now upped the ante by telling these same citizens it's okay to come to the door when the police are there with a gun in their hands. It is already illegal for police to intentionally. isolate someone's rights. A fourth amemdment violation should not be grounds for using force against police officers. It's a slippery slope. I not only worry for the officers but also for the civilians that will be killed when they try to exercise this new statute. Before now most people that felt the police were entering illegally submitted and left the situation unharmed. Most of the time they learned the police WERE justified in entry. If they were not they citizens had grounds for an expensive lawsuit.

Throwing around the tragedies that have occurred nationwide because of mistakes made as justification for this law is ludicrous. Many of these tragedies would have been avoided had people not come out to meet the police armed. This ill conceived law would not have saved them. It will instead result in MORE deaths of civilians that feel emboldened to meet the police armed.

Bob @ 3/13/2012 3:50 AM


The problem with your argument is that all too often, the innocent citizens are dead or severely wounded, leaving only those who invaded the wrong home to "sort it out". The innocent Marine who never fired a shot but was killed in Arizona, the dead 7-year-old girl in Detroit are just two that come immediately to mind. If the only thing that this law accomplishes is making LE check, double check, and triple check their information before invading a citizen's home, then that's a great thing. In the middle of the night, in the dark, rudely awakened from a deep sleep by invaders crashing into the home of someone who knows that they have no reason to think the police would ever invade their home because they are innocent citizens, it's natural that their first assumption is that criminals have invaded their home to do harm to them and their family. The situation isn't about interpreting the law in a split second. It's about defending one's family from unknown invaders.

Mark Jones @ 3/13/2012 3:57 AM

All arguments aside, this is simply over-legislation. Just one more law too many. More controls...more loopholes to be found. We would do better to do away with a lot of the statuatory law and emphasis common law. As was said, 99.99% of the time the entry is lawful. So what happens, a useless law for the .01%.

Greg @ 3/13/2012 4:07 AM

Some of these arguments sound like the political chiefs of police comments about concealed carry...blood running in the streets, gunfights over fender-benders etc...none of which happened to the disgust of the Sarah Brady's of the word who prefer peasants to citizens.

Way too many instances of "Oops, my bad, didn't mean to kill your dogs/kids etc., wrong house". There are way too many cases of this happening...idiot female cop breaking a window with her Glock (with her finger on the trigger of course) and shooting/killing the homeowner making dinner. "Oops, my bad...wrong house, no-knock entry".

It's not an excuse to kill police or "open season"...but at 2:30 AM when a free citizen is asleep and you hear someone breaking in your door, there should be a law on the books to defend yourself in court vs. "You can't ever defend yourself from police entering your house illegally/by accident. There'll still be a court case, but at least the honest person will have a defense available.

Tim @ 3/13/2012 4:56 AM

This is another classic example of politicians caving to a few protestors. There are remedies in place to question the legality of police entry that do not include resisting. I can only hope the Governor of Indian has the sense to veto this knee jerk response to public pressure. Perhaps the domestic violence laws and the reason officers entered in the first place should be reviewed.
Maybe the politician that introduced this insane piece of legislation should grab a shield and come to the door with the entry teams.
The sheep insist on defanging the sheepdogs... Shame on them.

A.J. @ 3/13/2012 5:15 AM

This bill gives the 1% an excuse and possibly motivation to use force against the police, justified or not. I agree that we, as citizens, are afforded the right to be secure in our homes but we're not concerned with the good people of our country. We're concerned with the minority of booger eaters who will use this as a justification of using force against the police. If the police enter a home illegally, which happens much less often that you might believe, and force isn't used, the worst that may happen is a civil lawsuit later. Everyone gets to go home unharmed. Allowing people to use force against the police means both sides are likely to be hurt or killed in the process. Then the legality of the entrance is irrelevant. Stupid bill passed by politicians who care very little about the police OR citizens.

John7670 @ 3/13/2012 5:47 AM

It opens the door for more violence. When the bill is passed police will have a high expectation of being fired upon than usual. Law biding home owner may have only a pop gun and when the police enter he opens fire. The return fire from automatic weapons will be deadly and needless. Without the law innocent home owner surrenders without incident and sues the police down the road. With the law......he dies and the police still get sued. Pick your poison!!!!!!!!

Jim @ 3/13/2012 6:22 AM

So please explain at what point will a homeowner know if the entry is legal or not. This opens the door for open season on police officers. If the entry is deemed illegal by the courts, evidence obtained is inadmissable AND there would be civil ramifications for the police. This law is irresponsible and will result in more law enforcement deaths as well as homeowner deaths.

Jbad04 @ 3/13/2012 7:09 AM

I am amazed at the lack of intelligence on the part of some of the posters. "Just make sure it isn't illegal" Oh, Please! As if we make a conscious decision to enter the wrong home! Mistakes will happen. so now you are taking a situation that should be resolved in a courtroom through a civil action to the living room where people will be injured or killed. Yeah, that is a real improvement. If I were an Indiana LEO I would move to another state and let some of these self-righteous citizens who are so unhappy with them try to do the job.

Dan Birdsley @ 3/13/2012 7:22 AM

Smith: you are spot on! Seems like they are trying to "encourage" people not to become cops in Indiana.

Juan 10-13 @ 3/13/2012 7:37 AM

There has got to be some really flakey stuff in Indiana for the Gov. officials to actually go as far as passing a law for Criminals to kill,injure,terrorize cops! I will NEVER travel to or through the state,or solicit anything from there on the web or otherwise.

darkh2ocop @ 3/13/2012 9:08 AM

Many states have laws that allow the use of force to resist an unlawfull arrest. And those laws allow the citizens to use one level of force above what the officers are using to make an illegal arrest. So get out of the dark ages and go back to rookie school and study your states laws and US law.

Dave @ 3/13/2012 9:48 AM

The problem is that the general public have no idea about the several rules and laws that pertain to police entry into your home. When SWAT enters the wrong home it is usually because they have PC to believe the dirtbag that just killed an innocent kid is in that house. So with this new law you "innocent victims" will open up for on a heavily armed and team that will destroy you. Bottom line, more civilians will be killed because they think that LEO's don't have a right to enter when in fact they have the us supreme ct telling them otherwise. Learn the law before making stupid comments!!

HPD1027 @ 3/13/2012 10:22 AM

Nice job Indiana lawmakers, there are already laws that protect unlawful searches and seizures, this bill won't protect anyone, in fact it will get more people hurt including the victim who thinks its ok to defend themselves, they may have that right but wouldn't it be better to listen to the commands and figure out any wrong doings when it's safe to do so, its also going to cost a fortune training officers to distinguish between a victim defending themselves and a legit suspect, good luck with that curriculum, I thought Mass. was bad

hoosier @ 3/13/2012 11:52 AM

All LEO's outside of Indiana should sleep easy, most LE in Indiana are supportive of this law

tbow426 @ 3/13/2012 12:56 PM

Simple concept BOB-BILL! True event I will describe. We receive info that a 20 year old just killed one person and shot another with a SKS rifle. He is tracked to an address in our town and that is the only address that can be located. A search warrant is obtained (no knock) cause he is armed with a rifle. SWAT makes entry and we encounter his folks. Dad resists commands and is met with force. Under Indiana's almost law Dad could meet us with deadly force because he believes it is an illegal entry. Dad will get killed! Stupid law!!! Civil court is the best place to address an illegal entry by police!!!!!!!!!!!!

Commander Griffin @ 3/13/2012 4:41 PM

Don't sweat it my brothers. Caution and planning are the key here. We are professionals and are smart enough to deal with all laws that govern us.

PD236 @ 3/13/2012 5:55 PM

If Supreme Court Justices with their level of education disagree on subjects such as Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion...How is the average citizen going to determine whether the Police were entering illegally? I'm all for limiting the power of government, but in a court of law is the place to do it not in a house during a search.

FOX0311 @ 3/14/2012 8:18 AM

It amazes me how many people haven't even read the bill before commenting. I am completely opposed to this bill and if I was an LEO in Indiana, I would be looking for lateral transfers out of state. This doesn't just cover homes, it also covers property (i.e. yards, etc.) and motor vehicles. This is insane and dangerous. Also Hoosier, I know of plenty of Indiana Lawmen on PoliceOne who are very opposed to this bill.

If you support it and you're in law enforcement, think about how many people you have arrested or had to make entry into their homes and they have told you that the arrest/entry/search was illegal? I would say almost every person I've ever arrested has said this. Why would I put my life in someone elses hands who has no concept of what is a legal or illegal entry/arrest/search? If I am wrong, then sue me and my department, don't decide to deny my wife and daughter their father because you want to assert your 'rights.' I am realy worried about this coming to my state.

This is also a blatant example of how far-right politics can be just as dangerous as the far-left. The NRA backed this bill wholeheartedly and I have cancelled my membership.

Chris Fine @ 3/15/2012 8:47 AM

OK you non police types. The problem for us is NOT illegal entry, it's EVERY single domestic violence or otherwise call that you cop haters will try to use to stop us from doing our (legal) job. I've been doing this for 28 years and EVERY time I go to a call where the suspect is probably going to jail, they have no right to be here or I know the law.. For Law Enforcement, it's NOT about illegal entry (because the court case found the officers were correct), it's about drunken, drugged up, spouse/kid beating slobs out there that NOW can fight us because they "believe" we are acting illegal. We will now have to fight, tase, mace, shoot OR LEAVE when these mopes want to protest that we got called to their houses. So much for protecting............

Jim A @ 3/16/2012 7:44 AM

The Indiana House of Representatives has essentially become a Citizen Review Board of the police. It is a very dangerous place to go! Citizens who live sheltered lives and have NO understanding of law enforcement, immediacy, or danger are put in positions of having hours, days, and months to decide whether officers have done right or wrong. Hmmm. Sounds like extremely liberal supervisors to me!

Jim A

udaman @ 3/16/2012 2:20 PM

When a few criminals in the general commit a crime with a gun, legislation is passed that affects ALL law-abiding citizens. We are all held accountable for thee actions of a few bad apples. I guess LEO does not want to be held to the same standards. The higher-ups in LEO know who the bad cops are, yet they keep covering for them. The storming of the house in Tucson is a prime example. That was a clusterf--- from the start. It's about that LE is held to a MUCH higher standard and respect and follow the Constitution, not trample all over it in the supposed name of "justice".

Final Comment? @ 3/17/2012 1:53 AM

Here is a scenario for you:

It was early in the morning and you are still in bed with your dog and a daughter that had a nightmare the same night. A man yells something inaudible due to the sound of the chainsaw he is wealding through your front door. What would you do? Should you be held liable for the consequences?

bonnie @ 3/19/2012 3:27 PM

Once again the innocent will pay the price to protect the guilty. For those of you who think that this is a good thing, there are already laws on the books to take care of officers who violate your rights. And double jeopardy does not apply to officers. If they are violating peoples rights, they can and will be tried until there is justice, criminally and civilly. Not that the original law saying it is never o.k. to resist makes any sense either but, by going forward with this, Indiana is encouraging good officers to resist taking initiative. search warrants are never a sure thing. They are based on probable cause and probable cause is not a sure thing either. In fact, law enforcement is a gamble for every good cop that wears a badge, everytime they put it on. Now, Indiana wants to give an out to criminals who injure and kill cops. All they will have to say is I didn't think it was a legal warrant and then rely on some lawyer wanting to make a name for himself, to get them off the hook. Hey, Indiana cops. I'm on your side, at least the 99.9% of you who lay your life on the line everyday for grocery money. The rest of you, the less then .01% that misrepresent. Your not cops, your infiltrators.

Morris @ 3/26/2012 5:16 AM

The answer does not lie in legislatively authorizing apathetic sheep to repel legally appointed law enforcement personnel. The answer lies in truly vetting law enforcement personnel. Apathetic sheep pale in comparison to apathetic cops.

Tim McBride @ 4/13/2012 6:22 PM

It almost seems like some kind of internet joke. The scary part is it is not just the Governor. The Legislative body for the state put this law together and voted on it before it even reached the Governor's desk. Now you will leave it in the hands of the citizen, who has limited knowledge of the law and probably a negative bias towards police to make this decision. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Indiana is going to have a lot of dead officers and more dead citizens.

A review of any home or vehicle entry after the fact by a unattached party or judge should be the standard. Governor, did you ever hear of a warrant? Thats what the police get to enter homes. Its going to be hard to show some drug dealer a copy of the warrant while he is shooting at the police.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine