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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.