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. 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

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT