Fourth Amendment
State concedes traffic stop was invalid
May 10, 2012
Jennifer NelsonOn the appeal of a woman’s conviction of possession of marijuana, the state conceded that the traffic stop that led
to the discovery of the drug was invalid. The Indiana Court of Appeals accordingly reversed the conviction.
MoreJudges uphold drug convictions and sentence
May 9, 2012
Jennifer NelsonA defendant’s argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police searched his vehicle and found pills
failed because the man abandoned his vehicle after the traffic stop. By fleeing, he relinquished any reasonable expectation
of privacy in the car, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.
MoreJudges reverse marijuana conviction
May 3, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe search of the car driven by a defendant violated the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled, so the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained through an inventory search of the car.
MoreMan can't prove ineffective assistance from attorney
May 2, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of a man’s petition for post-conviction relief, in which he claimed
his trial counsel was ineffective.
MoreCOA rules police officer's questions not unconstitutional
March 16, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryThe Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a man has incorrectly interpreted the Fourth Amendment in his appeal and that
no constitutional violation occurred when he allowed a police officer to search his car.
MoreJudges find search wasn't valid under 4th Amendment
March 8, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals has found that a woman’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures was violated and a trial judge erred in not suppressing evidence found during a home search.
MoreOfficer did not violate 4th Amendment in finding gun in man's coat
January 31, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryA police officer who arrested a man and then found a gun in his coat did not violate the man’s rights, the Indiana Court
of Appeals held.
MoreCourt finds police lacked reasonable suspicion for stop and search
January 6, 2012
Michael HoskinsFinding that an Indianapolis police officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion or consent to stop a man acting suspiciously
in a gas station parking lot, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed two fraud convictions involving the possession of
movie DVDs that weren’t yet on the market.
MoreAppellate court upholds murder conviction
December 9, 2011
Jenny MontgomeryThe Indiana Court of Appeals found the circumstantial evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable
doubt that a man killed his wife.
MoreCOA affirms denial of motion to suppress
December 6, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe actions of police officers who showed up on a man’s property to investigate a complaint – which led to the
discovery of marijuana plants – were reasonable, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
MoreBarnes panel OKs proposed law changes
November 11, 2011
Michael HoskinsA legislative study committee has approved proposed changes to state law that it hopes the Indiana General Assembly will consider
in response to a state Supreme Court decision earlier this year.
MoreJudges interpret left turn traffic statute
October 24, 2011
Michael HoskinsTurning left from an intersection doesn’t mean you must drive into the lane closest to the center line, the Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
MoreSupreme Court upholds Barnes ruling
September 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsEmphasizing that it’s not trampling on the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Supreme Court has revisited a ruling it made
four months ago and upheld its holding that residents don’t have a common law right to resist police entering a person’s
home.
MoreMan's detainment by officer violated 4th Amendment
August 31, 2011
Jennifer NelsonConservation officers checking to see if a fisherman had a valid license did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the man
and ask to see what was inside his bag after verifying his license, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.
MoreLawmakers discuss Barnes police entry ruling
August 25, 2011
Michael HoskinsAn Indiana summer study committee met for the second time Wednesday to discuss a state Supreme Court ruling from earlier this
year involving the right to resist police entry into one’s home.
MorePublic to testify before Barnes subcommittee
August 23, 2011
IL StaffThe subcommittee formed to address the issue of illegal police entry following an Indiana Supreme Court ruling will hear public
testimony and discuss draft language at its Wednesday meeting.
MoreJustices rule officer didn't search car to find gun
July 11, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a man’s firearm conviction, finding the police officer who found a handgun in the
man’s car during a traffic stop wasn’t searching the car when he saw the gun.
MoreJustices keep pace with past years' activity
July 5, 2011
Michael HoskinsIn the final days before its fiscal calendar year ended, the Indiana Supreme Court kept pace with past years’ activity
levels.
MoreSupreme Court rules on cheek swab case
June 30, 2011
Jennifer NelsonIn a 4-1 decision handed down June 30, the Indiana Supreme Court found a man's consent to the swab of his cheek for DNA
was voluntary, so the swab didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
MoreLawmakers discuss scope of police entry case
June 30, 2011
Michael HoskinsA Bedford lawyer-legislator says a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision on resisting police entry has resulted in more feedback
from attorneys and residents statewide than he’s experienced since the daylight saving time debate.
MoreJudges halt enforcement of challenged laws
June 27, 2011
Jennifer NelsonTwo federal judges issued preliminary injunctions June 24 preventing parts of two new controversial laws regarding immigration
and funding of Planned Parenthood of Indiana from being enforced.
MoreJustices asked to rehear Barnes
June 22, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to revisit a ruling on a person’s right to resist illegal law enforcement entry
into one’s home, and 71 state legislators have signed an amicus curiae brief asking the justices to narrow their decision.
MoreLegislative committee to look at Barnes decision
June 8, 2011
Jennifer NelsonNot since daylight-saving time has an issue agitated Sen. Brent Steele’s constituents as much as the recent decision
by the Indiana Supreme Court on illegal police entry.
MoreJustices rule: No right to resist
June 8, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court caught many people off guard when it abolished the common law right of citizens to reasonably resist
police from entering their homes, no matter the situation and regardless of whether the entry is legal.
MoreHundreds gather for rally against Indiana Supreme Court ruling
May 25, 2011
Michael HoskinsNearly 300 people gathered on the steps of the Indiana Statehouse Wednesday, many calling for the recall of Indiana Supreme
Court Justice Steven H. David. Justice David authored the recent high court ruling that held individuals don’t have
the right to resist police who enter their home, even if those entries are illegal.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Court Calendar
-
May 23, 2012 Covered Bridge Homeowners Association vs. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana - 5/23/12
-
June 1, 2012 Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., et al. v. Michiana Contracting, et al. - 6/1/12
-
June 12, 2012 State of Indiana Military Department, et al. v. Continental Electric Co.
-
June 19, 2012 The City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Co., et al.
Indiana Lawyer Featured Advertisers
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.