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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT