Dereck D. Hendricks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1510-CR-1558
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2016Background
- At ~3:30 a.m. Jackson called 911 reporting Hendricks had attempted to choke her; she left the house and stayed at a nearby relative’s home. She told the operator she intended to return and did not request an ambulance.
- Officers Thalheimer and Olmos went to the North Gale Street residence. Hendricks answered the door, refused officers entry, and told them to leave.
- Jackson returned, unlocked the door from outside, pointed at Hendricks, and opened the door for officers; Hendricks continued to refuse to come outside.
- Officers entered the home to arrest Hendricks without a warrant; a struggle ensued, officers tased and handcuffed him.
- Hendricks was convicted at bench trial of two counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and appealed, arguing the officers were not lawfully executing their duties when they entered his home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hendricks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were lawfully executing duties when Hendricks resisted | Officers had authority to enter over objection to address alleged domestic violence and effect an arrest | Officers entered without warrant or exigent circumstances; Hendricks had a right to resist unlawful entry | The officers were not lawfully executing duties when they entered; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (present co-occupant’s refusal prevents warrantless entry based on another co-occupant’s consent)
- Harper v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (warrantless in-home arrest requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances)
- Barnes v. State, 953 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. 2011) (discussed in relation to Castle Doctrine legislative response)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Adkisson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (forcible entry to arrest without exigency is unlawful)
- Cupello v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (Castle Doctrine and related entry/force issues)
