ILNews

High court takes 3 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear a case in which a dissenting Court of Appeals judge worried that the majority’s finding would head toward a bright-line rule regarding the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement in the context of a car on the side of the road.

In Cedric D. Lewis v. State of Indiana,  No. 49S1010-CR-619, the three judges on the appellate panel each wrote an opinion, with Judges Patricia Riley and James Kirsch concluding that the search of Cedric Lewis’ car violated the state and federal constitutions. Lewis was pulled over, immediately stuck his hands out the window and seemed nervous. He said he had no drugs in the car. As the arresting officer opened the driver’s side door to ask the passenger to get out of the car because it would be towed, the officer saw a gun. Lewis’ attempts to suppress the handgun evidence were denied.

Judge Riley focused her opinion on the officer safety exception for searching a car without a warrant and found the officer’s safety to not be an issue. Judge Kirsch concurred in result with Judge Riley because he felt the record failed to answer important questions regarding officer safety concerns and that the state didn’t satisfy its burden to prove that the search was justified.

Judge Paul Mathias dissented because he thought Judge Riley’s ruling went in the direction of creating a bright-line rule regarding where officers may lawfully position themselves outside of a vehicle without a warrant.

The justices also accepted Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana,  No. 49S02-1010-CR-620, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Alva Curtis’ motion to dismiss charges against him, because not dismissing the charges was a violation of his due process rights. Curtis has physical and mental limitations and is uneducated. When living with a friend, he attacked a neighbor. He was released from jail nearly a month after the incident and ended up in a long-term, locked facility before being moved to a rehabilitation and nursing facility.

Psychiatric examinations determined Curtis couldn’t understand the proceedings, help his attorney, and would likely not be restored to competency. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss and refused to commit him to the Department of Mental Health and Addictions based on the cost to the state.

The appellate court didn’t fault the trial court for not committing Curtis in order to save money, but that rationale doesn’t support the decision to deny dismissing the charging information. The judges cited State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281, 285 (Ind. 2008) to find Curtis’ due process rights had been violated. The Davis court explained the mere act of holding criminal charges indefinitely over the head of someone who won’t ever be able to prove his innocence is a violation of due process rights, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

In Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corp., et al., No. 20S03-1010-CV-618, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Prestige Equipment Corp. and other defendants on Gibraltar’s complaint of conversion, replevin, and a money judgment.

Gibraltar argued that a lease entered into between Key Corporate Capital Inc. and Vitco Industries Inc., to which Gibraltar is a secured creditor, was actually a disguised sale subject to an unofficial security interest. The judges found after applying the relevant Colorado statute and examining the underlying circumstances of the transaction that the lease was just a lease.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT