In Hawaii, You cannot physically bar the police from illegally entering your home

I discussed this in the Hawaii Appellate Law Blog last August. I bring it up again because, as a case recently published by the Indiana Court of Appeals points out, in Indiana ya can.

The Hawaii case involved a woman charged with Hindering Prosecution in the First Degree after she blocked police at the door when they came to her house to arrest her son without a warrant. When police tried to shove past her, she braced herself into the doorway and told them, “Get the f— out of here. You need a search warrant.” Police pushed past her anyway and the woman grabbed the sleeve of one of the officers, tearing it and scratching the officer’s arm.

The Hawaii Supreme Court stated:

Although the entry by the police into the home was illegal, we are constrained to apply the hindering prosecution statute inasmuch as the risk of dangers associated with physically resisting such an intrusion at the time it occurs, outweighs whatever vindication of personal rights might be accomplished through physical resistance at that moment.

State v. Line, No. 27850, slip op. at 26-27 (August 11, 2009).

In the Indiana case, filed on the 15th this month, Defendant and his wife were arguing while Defendant was moving out of their apartment. During the argument, the wife tried to call her sister, but Defendant grabbed the phone and threw it against the wall. The wife then used her cell phone to call 911. When officers arrived, Defendant was walking out of the apartment with a bag. The wife came out with another bag, threw it on the ground, and told him to take the rest of his things. When the wife and Defendant went back into the apartment, officers tried to follow them inside.

When they reached the doorway of the apartment, Defendant turned around and told the officers that they could not enter. An officer said they needed to come in to investigate the 911 call. When the officer attempted to walk past Defendant to enter the apartment, Defendant shoved the officer into the hallway. The two continued to struggle and eventually another officer on the scene grabbed Defendant in a vascular neck restraint and took him to the ground. Defendant continued to struggle and officers used a taser to subdue him. (Incidentally, the defendant suffered an adverse reaction to the taser and was transported to the hospital).

I won't go into all the procedural details. (The appeal involved whether Defendant should have gotten jury instructions regarding his right to resist unlawful entry by the officers). In contrast to the Hawaii court's holding that "the risk of dangers associated with physically resisting such an intrusion at the time it occurs, outweighs whatever vindication of personal rights might be accomplished through physical resistance," the Indiana court stated:

“Indiana law recognizes the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry of a police officer into a person‟s home.” Robinson v. State, 814 N.E.2d 704, 707 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Alspach v. State, 755 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied). “[W]here the arrest is attempted by means of a forceful and unlawful entry into a citizen‟s home, such entry represents the use of excessive force and the arrest cannot be considered peaceable. Therefore, a citizen has the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry.” Adkisson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1316 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)).