The legal temerity is truly shocking. The Indiana Supreme Court recently handed down a decision declaring the ancient common-law right to resist unlawful entry of one's home by police officers invalid in Indiana. Yes, Hoosiers, your judiciary has decided the 4th Amendment protection of a citizen's home from unlawful search and seizure (reiterated word-for-word in the 11th Amendment to the Indiana Constitution) does not extend to any resistance of an unlawful assault or invasion, reasonable or otherwise--the court claims civil remedies at law after-the-fact are sufficient protection, concluding "public policy disfavors any such right" to resist.
In Barnes vs. State, the court by a 3-2 majority noted the ancient common-law origins (possibly back as far as the Magna Carta) of the right to reasonably resist unlawful arrest or entry of one's home, even citing the U.S. Supreme Court's repeated upholding of the right, but decided by fiat to step far beyond even more recent precedent that is slowly chipping away at Fourth Amendment rights. The case was complex--an officer forced his way into an apartment after a call about a non-violent domestic disturbance, and upon some resistance by the homeowner, "used a choke hold and a taser to subdue him." Upon recovery (the homeowner suffered an "adverse reaction to the taser" and was taken to the hospital) he found himself charged with disorderly conduct, resisting a police officer, battery on a police officer, and interference with reporting of a crime. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the legality of resisting an unlawful entry, and the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on appeal. The Supreme Court, faced with the case, did not uphold the age-old right of sanctuary from unlawful entry, nor did they opt to extend the "exigent circumstances" that legalize warrantless entry in critical situations to cover the entry in a case of domestic disturbance.