That the Constitution doesn't matter might come as a shock to those who attended the rally. However, one of the most fundamental principles of federalism is that states are always free to give you more rights than what is provided by the Constitution. In 2006, the Indiana General Assembly did passed Public Law 189-2006, the so-called "No Retreat" law. Here is how that law is summarized on the Clark County Prosecutor's website:
P.L. 189-2006 amended the self-defense statute, IC 35-41-3-2, to make clear that a person has no duty to retreat before using force or deadly force...IC 35-41-3-2(b) states:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; andThere is no exception in the law for police officers who do the unlawful entry. With the adoption of the statute, it doesn't matter that the Constitution may not provide protection to the homeowner against the law enforcement officer entering the home unlawfully. Again, states are always free to provide more legal protections than that mandated by the Constitution. Unless the statute is contradicted by another statute or is somehow unconstitutional, then the statute would control. The court appears to have completely missed IC 35-41-3-2(b) in its analysis in Barnes.
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Governor Daniels was also confused by the Court's overlooking the no retreat law, i.e. IC 35-41-3-2(b). The Indiana Law Journal reports:
Earlier today at Gov. Daniels’ media availability at IUPUI, reporters asked him for his thoughts about the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding illegal entry. The governor said he was puzzled by the ruling.Looking at the facts of the case, the police officers' entry seems perfectly justified under existing law. There seemed to be no need to create new 4th Amendment law. Nonetheless, the 4th Amendment doesn't matter once the Indiana General Assembly passes a law giving homeowners the right to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry. I am not sure how the Court overlooked IC 35-41-3-2(b).
To expand on that comment, David Pippen, the governor’s general counsel, said this afternoon the governor’s questions relate to the no retreat law the governor signed in 2006, which seems to be in conflict with the ruling and would trump the case law basis for the court’s determination. That statute was not raised during the course of the case. The no retreat law unequivocally strengthened the rights of Hoosiers to be secure in their homes, and the existence of the statute seems to provide ample reason for a rehearing.