ILNews

Opinions Jan. 9, 2013

January 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael D. Weir
11-3321
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and no judge in regular active service asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. Weir complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a police officer seized $6,655 from him during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey A. Hanauer v. Colleen T. Hanauer
79A04-1205-PO-271
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against Jeffrey Hanauer as there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s issuance of the protective order after finding the wife is a victim of domestic violence.

Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1206-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Marty L. Armes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1207-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms probation conditions are not ambiguous, overbroad, unconstitutionally vague or unreasonable, and the trial court’s sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor is not inappropriate.

Brian E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1203-CR-141
Criminal. Affirms interlocutory order denying motion to suppress evidence seized after officers stopped the vehicle in which Green was a passenger.
 
Jack Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1205-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Troy Crim v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Gerald Mickens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-PC-1162
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Juan C. Duarte-Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-PC-238
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT