INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Advocates for domestic violence victims say Indiana legislators could wind up limiting police officers' ability to protect those being abused under a proposal that aims to clarify a court's ruling that people don't have the right to resist police officers illegally entering their homes.

A bill moving through the Legislature gives residents limited rights to resist officers — even with violent force — and specifies several situations in which officers can enter a home. Supporters say the proposal sets out a clear line on what residents and officers can do and that officers would have authority to enter a home whenever they believe someone is in danger.

But the state Senate's decision to remove a provision that specifically allowed officers to enter a home while investigating suspected domestic violence has advocates worried.

Officers responding to abuse reports could also be blocked from entering a home because of a provision in the bill that would allow one resident's objection to overrule permission given by another resident, said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

"There is a power and control issue with all sorts of domestic violence incidents," she said. "As you can imagine in most domestic incidents, the aggressor will not want law enforcement to respond."

Legislators have set out to define when residents can resist officers following a public uproar when the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in May that residents could not use force against officers even during an illegal entry.

The court's 3-2 ruling brought Indiana law in line with most other states. But about 250 people attended a Statehouse rally against the decision, contending it infringed on their constitutional rights and contradicted centuries of common law precedent regarding homeowners' rights and the limits of police power.

The bill that the Senate approved 45-5 this month would allow residents to resist if the police officer wasn't identified or on official duty. Officers would be allowed to enter homes when they have court warrants, are chasing a criminal suspect, believe someone inside is in danger or have permission from the residents.

Republican Sen. Michael Young of Indianapolis, who sponsored the bill, said he believed the original provision allowing police entry for domestic violence investigations gave officers too much leeway unless they saw actual signs of violence.

He said officers could always request a court warrant to enter a home if they still believed it was necessary.

"That's the way it should be, because we don't know whether that phone call (reporting violence) was legitimate or not," Young said. "They have to have a basis to enter your property."

Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson of Hammond, who is a former police officer, was a member of a legislative study committee that reviewed the court's decision and drafted a proposed bill including the domestic violence provision.

She said she couldn't support the bill with that section removed.

"If officers cannot go into a house when it's clearly a domestic violence call, then we are going to have a lot of women who are killed because officers are going to hesitate," Lawson said. "They're going to wonder whether they can do this or not."

The House is expected to begin action on the bill after legislators return from their Super Bowl-related break on Feb. 6.

Blomquist said police officers are well-trained in how to identify and help abuse victims and that the domestic violence coalition and other advocacy groups would be pushing for changes to the bill when the House reviews it.

David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said the group believed the proposal should be simplified by specifying that residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they resist police officers who are acting illegally — rather than laying out situations for when police entry is right or wrong.

"When you make lists, that complicates it," Powell said. "Who wants to be left on, who wants to be left off?"

The court decision came in a case in which an Evansville man was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest for blocking and shoving a police officer who tried to enter his home without a warrant after his wife called 911 during an argument. The man was shocked with a stun gun and arrested. His wife told officers he hadn't hit her.

Young maintains that the Supreme Court's ruling was one that defended government against its citizens and that by permitting police entry on domestic violence reports, the Legislature would be continuing that.

"It's so overly broad," he said. "This could open the government to come into our homes without a warrant. All they have to do is have someone call and say it's domestic violence."