ILNews

COA to visit Rushville, Greencastle

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Rushville and Greencastle next week as part of its “Appeals on Wheels” initiative.

Chief Judge John Baker and Judges L. Mark Bailey and Margret G. Robb will hear Natasha Lafave v. State of Indiana, No. 16A01-1006-CR-271, at 10 a.m. Monday at Rushville Consolidated High School. In the appeal from Decatur Superior Court, Natasha Lafave argues that as an overnight guest at her friend’s house, she was entitled to the protections extended to houseguests under the Fourth Amendment. Lafave was convicted of illegal consumption of alcohol while under the age of 21.

She also claims the state failed to establish the existence of one of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement to enter a residence for a search and that police entry into the house where she was arrested was therefore unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, Judges Ezra A. Friedlander, Robb, and Bailey will hear Elizabeth Littlefield v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1003-CR-266, at DePauw University in Greencastle. Elizabeth Littlefield appeals her conviction of disorderly conduct after being arrested during a domestic dispute with her husband. She argues that her arrest was inappropriate because the arresting officer didn’t act in accordance with police department policies for handling encounters with the mentally ill. She also contends that the comments leading to her conviction were political speech protected by the Indiana Constitution.

Arguments begin at 2:30 p.m. in the Inn at DePauw & Event Center.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT