Robin Harper v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 80
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Harper called police about a domestic dispute; officers sought to arrest her for domestic battery but entered her home without a warrant after she denied entry and opened the door to hand over documents.
- Officers Gillespie and Hartman entered Harper’s home after she opened the door and handed them a clipboard to sign a protective order, even though she refused entry.
- Harper was not wearing shoes; an officer, without warning, attempted to remove her wedding ring, prompting Harper to move and resist physically.
- Officers sat Harper in a chair and removed her ring as part of processing for arrest.
- Harper was charged with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; bench trial held, court found she consented to entry via the ruse and convicted her; conviction reversed on appeal.
- Court held that police entry was unlawful, thus they were not lawfully executing their duties at the time of arrest; insufficient evidence to sustain the resisting conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry was lawful without a warrant | Harper | Harper’s home entry required a warrant; no exigent circumstances | Unlawful entry; warrant not obtained; reversed conviction. |
| Whether Harper consented to entry | State | Consent procured by deception; not valid | Consent invalid due to fraudulent entry. |
| Whether evidence supports resisting law enforcement | State | Resisting proven by actions | Evidence insufficient; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (home entry presumptively unreasonable without warrant)
- Adkisson v. State, 728 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (no exigent circumstances to justify warrantless entry)
- Adkisson v. State (duplicate entry), 728 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (reiterated rule on threshold entry and arrest in home)
- Cox v. State, 696 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 1998) (opening door is not invitation to enter; preserve home privacy)
- Phillips v. State, 492 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 1986) (consent to entry invalid if obtained by fraud or coercion)
- Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1976) (threshold of dwelling; not necessarily private when public exposure applies)
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (statute nuanced; entry depends on circumstances of execution of duties)