Court Opinion

ID: 9782692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:05:23.444775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:07.851391
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur, but feel it is important to distinguish the facts before us from those in Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572, (Ind.2011), where our Indiana Supreme Court addressed illegal home entry by police.
Foster, like Barnes, was arrested in his home without a warrant. Unlike Barnes, Foster did not resist. Instead, after his arrest, Foster made incriminating statements in the police car and at the station. Barnes was appealing his right to resist in his own home, while Foster is challenging *764the admissibility of the evidence collected after police allegedly entered his home illegally.
The Barnes Court “decline[d] to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home” and “decline[d] to recognize a right to batter a police officer as part of that resistance.” Barnes, 946 N.E.2d at 576. Because there was no right to resist police entry, the Barnes Court said, “we need not decide the legality of the officers’ entry into Barnes’s apartment.” Id. at 577.
As our Supreme Court did not address the legality of the entry and as Barnes did not argue the suppression of any evidence gleaned from the alleged illegal entry, 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.