Ignacio Perez v. State of Indiana - 10/24/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  October 24, 2013 
9:00 AM  EST

9 a.m. 20A03-1206-CR-247. Police had identified Perez as the owner of a white truck involved in sales of cocaine, and they went to his house to investigate. Perez stepped out onto the porch to speak with the officers. As events unfolded, Perez gave untruthful answers, screamed something in Spanish to his wife who was at the front door, and was nervous, agitated, and belligerent; he “chest bumped” an officer while trying to get back into his house and he resisted attempts to arrest him. Once Perez was arrested and handcuffed, police found cash from a controlled cocaine buy in his pocket. A police dog then conducted a “sniff” of Perez’s front door, and alerted to the presence of illegal drugs. Police obtained a search warrant for the house and discovered more than eighty grams of cocaine. The Elkhart Superior Court denied Perez’s motion to suppress the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Perez v. State, 981 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Perez has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal, arguing that the “dog sniff” was illegal and that officers have no right to encounter and stop a defendant on his own property.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT