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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT