Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana - 6/26/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  June 26, 2014 
9:45 AM  EST

9:45 a.m. 02S05-1404-CR-246. Police responded to telephone calls that four dogs were fighting in Carpenter’s yard.  The  dogs, covered with mud and blood, were running in and out of the house through an open sliding glass door.  Three of the dogs were captured.  Two officers entered Carpenter’s house to capture the fourth dog, and they saw marijuana.  They obtained a search warrant based on what they had seen, and confiscated marijuana and other controlled substances.  The Allen Superior Court denied a motion to suppress this evidence and found Carpenter guilty of two class D felonies and other offenses.  The Court of Appeals affirmed in Carpenter v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated.  The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT