Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308 (1893), is an Indiana Supreme Court ruling that reversed a manslaughter conviction and held that a person keeps the right of self-defense when a police officer becomes the aggressor and inflicts unprovoked violence during an attempted arrest. The principle still gets quoted in arguments about police authority, but Indiana law and federal constitutional doctrine have moved so far since 1893 that the case offers almost no practical protection to anyone who physically resists an officer today.
What the Case Decided
Jackson Plummer left his house with a loaded revolver, walked into the business district, and threatened members of the town board after they ordered his trees cut down. He pointed the weapon at several people, including men named Elliott and Conklin. Those acts were misdemeanors under local law.1vLex United States. Plummer v. State
Town Marshal Dorn followed him but never announced an arrest. Carrying a revolver in one hand and a billy club in the other, Dorn crept up from behind and struck Plummer on the side of the head, hit him again on the back and arm, knocked the revolver from his hand, and then fired at him and missed. Plummer picked up his gun, returned fire, and killed the marshal.2Midpage. Plummer v. State, 34 N.E. 968
A jury convicted Plummer of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 15 years.1vLex United States. Plummer v. State The Indiana Supreme Court reversed. Two failures by the marshal drove the ruling. Dorn never told Plummer he intended to arrest him, and Dorn attacked before Plummer had done anything to resist. At the moment of the first blow, Plummer was walking toward home and had only told the marshal to keep back.2Midpage. Plummer v. State, 34 N.E. 968
Because the marshal used unprovoked force, the court called him a “trespasser” rather than an officer performing a lawful duty. The assault with the club, combined with the gunshot, gave Plummer “the clear right to defend himself.” The court stated the rule this way: a person who is without fault, in a place where they have a right to be, and violently assaulted, may repel force with force, and a killing in the reasonable exercise of self-defense is justifiable.1vLex United States. Plummer v. State
The court added two limits that still matter for reading the case correctly. A marshal cannot arrest for every misdemeanor without a warrant, and even during a lawful arrest, an officer may use only the force necessary to carry it out. Force can escalate if the suspect resists, but the officer does not get to open with a club to the head.
The Line Between Resisting Arrest and Defending Yourself
Plummer separates two situations that look alike from the outside. Resisting a lawful arrest, even one the person believes is mistaken, is not permitted. Defending yourself against a sudden, unannounced beating by someone who happens to wear a badge is a different act, because the officer has stepped outside the authority the badge carries. The decision rests on the officer’s conduct, not the citizen’s belief about whether the arrest was justified.
That distinction was easier to invoke in 1893, when the tools to challenge a bad arrest after the fact were thin. It is much harder to invoke now, and Indiana in particular has narrowed the doctrine by statute.
Why Plummer Offers Little Protection in Indiana Today
In 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court held in Barnes v. State that there was no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. The legislature responded in 2012 with Senate Bill 1, now codified at Indiana Code 35-41-3-2, which sets out the only circumstances in which a person may use reasonable force against a public servant. Force is permitted when the person reasonably believes it is necessary to:
- Protect themselves or a third person from the imminent use of unlawful force by the public servant.
- Prevent the public servant from unlawfully entering or attacking the person’s home, curtilage, or occupied vehicle.
- Prevent the public servant from unlawfully trespassing on or interfering with property the person possesses or is authorized to protect.
The statute also lists situations where force against a public servant is never justified, including when the person is committing a crime, provoked the officer, or reasonably believes the officer is acting lawfully. Deadly force is permitted only when the person reasonably believes the officer is acting unlawfully and the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.3Indiana General Assembly. Indiana Code 35-41-3-2 – Use of Force to Protect Person or Property
The practical effect is a much higher bar than Plummer set. A person who reasonably believes the officer is performing official duties lawfully cannot use force at all, even if the arrest later turns out to be illegal. Indiana’s message to its residents is direct: if the officer appears to be acting in an official capacity, comply and fight it in court.
How Modern Law Handles Excessive Police Force
Constitutional doctrine today focuses less on when a citizen may resist and more on when an officer may use force in the first place. Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions do most of the work.
Tennessee v. Garner
Deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and it is unreasonable unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury. The older common-law rule that permitted whatever force was needed to catch a fleeing felon was rejected.4Justia. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1
Graham v. Connor
Excessive-force claims arising from arrests, stops, and other seizures are judged under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. Courts look at the officer’s actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, giving weight to the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing.4Justia. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 Those factors are a starting point, not a checklist; courts weigh the totality of the circumstances, including how much time the officer had to consider alternatives.5Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. Use of Force – Part II
An officer who clubbed a man from behind without a word would fail that reasonableness test. The modern system treats that misconduct as grounds for civil liability and possible criminal prosecution of the officer, not as an invitation for armed resistance on the street.
The Modern Remedy: Civil Rights Lawsuits
A person subjected to excessive force can sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows anyone whose constitutional rights are violated by someone acting under government authority to seek damages.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights The plaintiff must show that the force was objectively unreasonable under Graham v. Connor.
The main obstacle is qualified immunity. Officers are shielded from personal liability unless the plaintiff can point to prior case law where an officer acting in closely similar circumstances was found to have violated the Constitution. General principles are not enough; courts often demand highly specific factual parallels, which makes novel fact patterns hard to win even when the force looks disproportionate.
These after-the-fact remedies did not exist in 1893, and their availability is one of the main reasons courts no longer endorse physical resistance as a reasonable first response. Plummer v. State still stands for the idea that a badge does not authorize unprovoked violence, and that insight runs through the Graham reasonableness test and Indiana’s use-of-force statute. As a legal defense for someone who fights back against an officer today, though, the case carries far less weight than its language suggests. Compliance in the moment, careful documentation afterward, and a lawsuit in court is the path that modern law actually rewards.