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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT