The Indiana Supreme Court is set to hear three arguments Thursday, including a case that challenges whether reasonable suspicion
alone is sufficient for law enforcement to obtain DNA from a cheek swab.
Justices will hold arguments in Arturo Garcia-Torres v. State of Indiana, No. 64S03-0912-CR-550, in which the Indiana Court
of Appeals affirmed Arturo Garcia-Torres' convictions of rape and burglary and the denial of his motion to suppress DNA
evidence from a cheek swab. The appellate court held taking the cheek swab required reasonable suspicion and isn't subject
to the advice-of-counsel requirements in Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975).
Judge Terry Crone dissented because he believed that taking the swab from a custodial suspect requires probable cause under
the Fourth Amendment and is subject to the advice-of-counsel requirements of Pirtle. Arguments begin at 9:45 a.m. in the Supreme
Court courtroom.
At 10:30 a.m., the high court will hear Roger Brown v. State of Indiana, No. 12S02-0912-CR-560, in which the Court of Appeals ruled
the results of Roger Brown's blood-alcohol test shouldn't have been admitted because it was performed by a certified
lab technician. The appellate judges held certified lab techs aren't "certified phlebotomists" or otherwise
someone trained in getting bodily substance samples under Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-6(j). Roger Brown challenged the admittance
of two tests used to prove his intoxication and support his convictions of drunk driving. The appellate court upheld his convictions
anyway because it believed the state was able to prove he was intoxicated and his driving caused the victims' injuries.
The justices will also hear Sheehan Construction Co. Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 49A02-0805-CV-420, at 9 a.m.
That case involves a dispute over what, if any, coverage was provided by commercial general liability insurance policies after
allegedly faulty workmanship was done by Sheehan's subcontractor. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor
of the insurers and insurance broker.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.