Here's a link to the case that this all stems from for those interested:
Basically, I think this was a poor and unnecessary decision on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court. Given the circumstances, I think that INSC could have just as easily held that Barnes' behavior represented exigent circumstances for the officers to enter and simply left it at that. While INSC did not explicitly rule on whether or not the entry was legal, they did state the following:
Originally posted by Indiana Supreme Court
Here, the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances.
This leads me to believe that, had they ruled on the matter, INSC would have found the officers' entry into Barnes' home legal.