Plummer v. State is no longer good law in the broad sense people often assume. The 1893 Indiana Supreme Court ruling that a person may use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest was effectively dismantled by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011 and replaced by a narrow statutory right in 2012. What survives is a hedged defense against unlawful entry into your home or an unlawful physical attack by an officer, subject to so many conditions that relying on it in the moment is legally and physically dangerous. As a practical guide to how to interact with police in Indiana today, Plummer is history, not law.
What Plummer Actually Held
The 1893 case involved a town marshal who tried to arrest Plummer without a warrant for a misdemeanor the marshal had not personally witnessed, then struck him with a billy club without announcing an arrest. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled the attempted arrest unlawful and held that a person who is without fault, in a place they have a right to be, and violently assaulted may repel force with force without retreating.
The ruling was never a blank check. The court limited permissible resistance to the amount of force reasonably necessary to stop the unlawful detention or prevent bodily harm, and it allowed deadly force only when the person reasonably feared death or serious injury. A minor procedural defect in an otherwise peaceful arrest did not justify violence. Still, for more than a century Indiana was among the states that recognized a common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, and Plummer was the source.
Barnes v. State Ended the Common-Law Rule in Indiana
On May 12, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court decided Barnes v. State and explicitly abolished the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into a home.1FindLaw. Barnes v. State – Section: I. Jury Instruction
Richard Barnes was moving out of his apartment during an argument with his wife. She called 911 and reported he was throwing things but had not hit her. When officers arrived and tried to enter to investigate, Barnes blocked the doorway and shoved one against a wall. Officers used a chokehold and taser to subdue him. He asked the trial court to instruct the jury on his right to resist unlawful entry. The trial court refused, and the Supreme Court agreed.1FindLaw. Barnes v. State – Section: I. Jury Instruction
The majority reasoned that modern safeguards, including civil lawsuits and the suppression of evidence, made physical resistance unnecessary, and that allowing citizens to fight officers during home entries would create dangerous escalations. The court said it was bringing Indiana “in stride with jurisdictions that value promoting safety in situations where police and homeowners interact.”2FindLaw. Barnes v. State The reaction was fierce enough that the legislature rewrote the statute within a year.
The 2012 Statute: What Force Against an Officer Is Still Legal
In May 2012, the Indiana General Assembly amended Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2. The revised statute opens with a legislative finding recognizing the “unique character of a citizen’s home” and reaffirms the right to defend against unlawful intrusion by anyone, including public servants.3Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 35 Criminal Law and Procedure 35-41-3-2
A person may use reasonable force against a public servant when they reasonably believe the force is necessary to:
- Protect themselves or another from what they reasonably believe is the imminent use of unlawful force by the officer
- Prevent or stop the officer’s unlawful entry into or attack on their home, curtilage, or occupied vehicle
- Prevent or stop the officer’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property they lawfully possess or have authority to protect
Deadly force sets a higher bar. It is available only when the person reasonably believes the officer is acting unlawfully and deadly force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to themselves or a third person.3Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 35 Criminal Law and Procedure 35-41-3-2
The statute then strips the defense away in several situations. Force against a public servant is not justified if you were committing a crime at the time, if you provoked the officer intending to cause injury, if you were the initial aggressor and did not withdraw and communicate that withdrawal, or if you reasonably believed the officer was acting lawfully.3Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code Title 35 Criminal Law and Procedure 35-41-3-2 Every one of those conditions is a judgment call you have to make correctly in seconds, and getting any of them wrong turns your defense into a felony charge.
What Resisting Costs If You Get It Wrong
The resisting law enforcement statute at Indiana Code § 35-44.1-3-1 makes it a Class A misdemeanor to forcibly resist, obstruct, or interfere with an officer acting in the lawful execution of their duties, or to flee after being ordered to stop.4Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-44.1-3-1 – Resisting Law Enforcement; Interfering With Public Safety A Class A misdemeanor carries up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.5Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-3-2 – Class A Misdemeanor
The charge escalates quickly based on how the resistance happens:
- Level 6 felony for using a vehicle to resist, punished by six months to two and a half years and a fine up to $10,000.6Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-7 – Class D Felony; Level 6 Felony; Judgment of Conviction Entered as a Misdemeanor
- Level 5 felony for drawing or using a deadly weapon, causing moderate bodily injury, or operating a vehicle in a way that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury, punished by one to six years and a fine up to $10,000.7Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-50-2-6 – Sentencing for Class C and Level 5 Felonies
- Level 3 felony when vehicle-based resistance causes death or catastrophic injury.
- Level 2 felony when that same conduct kills or catastrophically injures a firefighter, emergency medical provider, or law enforcement officer on duty.4Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-44.1-3-1 – Resisting Law Enforcement; Interfering With Public Safety
Vehicle-related felonies carry mandatory minimums that judges cannot suspend: at least 30 days for a first offense, 180 days with one prior conviction, and one year with two or more prior convictions.4Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-44.1-3-1 – Resisting Law Enforcement; Interfering With Public Safety These are the consequences waiting on the other side of a wrong call about whether an officer was acting lawfully.
The Remedies Courts Point You To Instead
When Indiana courts abandoned the common-law right to resist, they leaned on the remedies that did not exist in 1893. Those remedies are the legally safer path today, and knowing how they work is more useful than knowing Plummer.
A federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lets someone whose constitutional rights were violated by a person acting under government authority sue for damages.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 A false arrest claim usually rests on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures: an arrest without probable cause, or without a warrant in a situation where one was required, is a constitutional violation.
Excessive force claims are judged under the “objective reasonableness” standard the U.S. Supreme Court set out in Graham v. Connor. Courts weigh the severity of the suspected crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person was actively resisting or trying to flee.9Justia. Graham v. Connor The officer’s subjective motivations do not matter; the question is what a reasonable officer would have done in the same situation, with weight given to split-second decisions in tense circumstances.
The biggest obstacle is qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from civil liability unless the plaintiff shows both a constitutional violation and that the right was “clearly established” at the time, meaning existing precedent placed the illegality of the specific conduct “beyond debate.” One study found appellate courts favored police in 57 percent of excessive force cases between 2017 and 2019, up from 44 percent a decade earlier.10Congress.gov. Policing the Police: Qualified Immunity and Considerations for Congress
In a criminal case, the exclusionary rule is the other lever. Evidence obtained through an unlawful arrest can be suppressed, which often means the prosecution cannot make its case. If police arrested you without legal authority and found contraband during the arrest, a successful suppression motion can end the prosecution. The rule applies only in criminal proceedings and has exceptions, but it is one of the most effective ways to make an illegal arrest matter.
Why Citing Plummer as a Shield Today Is Dangerous
Plummer still gets passed around online as if it grants a broad right to resist police in Indiana. It does not. The 1893 holding reflected a legal system with almost no other check on police misconduct: no federal civil rights statute of the modern kind, no exclusionary rule, no internal affairs process, no body cameras. Physical resistance was close to the only remedy.
Indiana’s 2012 statute preserves a narrow right to use reasonable force against unlawful entry into your home or an unlawful physical attack, but the conditions attached to that right are unforgiving. You have to be right that the officer is acting unlawfully. You have to not be committing a crime. You have to not have provoked the encounter. You have to not be the initial aggressor. And you have to use no more force than reasonably necessary. Every one of those judgments has to hold up later, in a courtroom, applied to a decision you made in seconds while facing an armed officer.
The safer answer, and the one the courts have built the modern system around, is to comply in the moment and challenge the arrest afterward. If the arrest was unlawful, evidence can be suppressed. If the force was excessive, a Section 1983 suit puts the financial consequences on the officer and the department. Those remedies are slow and imperfect, and qualified immunity blunts them further, but they do not carry the risk of being shot or charged with a felony. Plummer v. State remains part of Indiana’s legal history. It is not a defense you want to test on the street.