Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana - 5/22/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  May 22, 2013 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 73A01-1209-CR-45. The appellant-defendant, Floyd Weddle, appeals his convictions for several drug-related offenses, including manufacturing methamphetamine, a class A felony, and possession of methamphetamine, a class B felony.  Weddle claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence at trial because the police officers’ search of a residence was pretextual in nature and an alleged “protective sweep” of the house was not limited in scope and was too broad.  As a result, Weddle maintains the police officers’ actions violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....