The text of SB 1 states that its legislative purpose is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.
To that end, the bill recognizes that an individual may use force
to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officers unlawful entry.
...
SB1 is not an innovation; it simply restores an explicit understanding of Indianas castle doctrine, which was subverted last year in the Indiana State Supreme Courts Barnes v. State ruling. As a wire service report observed at the time, that ruling effectively nullified the core protections contained in the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent provision in the Indiana constitution, as well as protections and immunities recognized by "common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215. The 32 decision last May 12 held that Indiana residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.
...
Although the "risks" to a police officer in such an encounter are vanishingly small, we shouldnt forget that at all times, and in all places, "officer safety" is the controlling priority. "It's not surprising that [the court] would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer, commented Professor Ivan Bodensteiner of Valparaiso University School of Law.
When a cop invades a home without legal authority, he is acting as a criminal, rather than a peace officer. SB 1 recognizes that principle by focusing on the act of illegal entry, rather than the identity of the aggressor.
The measure allows for forcible entry only when the officer has a valid warrant or legitimate probable cause; is in pursuit of a criminal suspect; or is acting with the consent or on the invitation of an adult resident. In other words: It would restore the status quo ante Barnes, which in nullifying the Fourth Amendment actually issued a hunting license to the police.
...
Our laws, our statutes, our Constitution, and the value of our country [were built] on one premise, and that was to defend our citizens against the government not defend our government against our citizens, noted State Senator Mike Young of Indianapolis, author of SB 1. The [Barnes] ruling was a ruling that defended the government against the citizens.
Rep. Jud McMillin of Dearborn, who wrote the house version of the bill, added: The distinction here is not between police officers and citizens. The distinction to be made here is between what is lawful and what is unlawful. In a society where we value our freedoms, we cannot have a bright-line test that tells people when they cannot exercise their freedoms.
