Fourth Amendment
Court addresses fine line between traffic stop, arrest
July 9, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a man’s drunk driving and marijuana possession convictions based on police
officer conduct, finding that the officer shouldn’t have held a gun and handcuffed him during what could have been a
legitimate traffic stop.
MoreCanine sniff case gets second look, same ruling
July 6, 2010
Elizabeth BrockettOn a rehearing petition from the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed today its holding in reversing a conviction
based on a traffic stop involving a canine sniff.
MorePolice entry violated man's constitutional rights
July 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe entry by police into a man’s apartment based on uncorroborated information from an anonymous source violated the
man’s federal and state constitutional rights, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. Because of this, the drugs
found in the man’s apartment must be suppressed.
MoreCOA upholds stop of teen with gun
June 17, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals found the stop by police of a teen at a summer expo in Indianapolis who had a loaded gun in his
waistband didn’t violate the teen’s state or federal constitutional rights. The appellate court also concluded
the juvenile court’s comments to the teen’s father don’t require a remand.
MoreCOA: Officer's observation didn't violate man's rights
June 15, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s various drug convictions and sentence, finding the police officer
didn’t violate the man’s Fourth Amendment rights by looking in the defendant’s car when trying to serve
a warrant.
MoreJustices: Search didn't violate 4th Amendment
March 24, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA warrantless search of a probationer's property that is conducted reasonably and supported by a probation search term
and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights, the Indiana Supreme Court held
today.
MoreBoy can't sue for lack of probable cause
March 17, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to decide whether Indiana provides a plaintiff an adequate post-deprivation remedy
despite the state's recognition of an affirmative immunity defense for government workers acting in the scope of their
employment.
MoreCOA: Consent prevented constitutional violations
March 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of two defendants' motion to suppress evidence even though it wasn't
reasonable under the Indiana Constitution because one of the men gave his consent to search the bag which held drugs.
MoreJudges find stop violated Fourth Amendment
February 26, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a defendant's stop by police and subsequent search of a wheelbarrow he was pushing
- which led to convictions of burglary and theft - violated the man's Fourth Amendment rights. The Circuit Court ordered
the defendant's petition for habeas corpus be granted.
MoreTransfer granted to 'knock and talk' case
November 24, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's highest court has agreed to hear a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a police "knock
and talk" investigation violated a man's constitutional rights.
MoreCOA reverses dismissal of drug charges
October 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA trial court erred when it sua sponte decided to exclude evidence from a warrantless search of a defendant's car and
dismiss the drug charges against him as a result of that search, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA splits on cheek-swab requirements
September 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled taking a cheek swab for DNA testing requires reasonable suspicion only, not probable
cause, under federal and state constitutions.
MoreJudges dissent on search after 'knock and talk'
September 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues' view that a police "knock and talk" investigation
didn't violate a man's rights under the Indiana Constitution, fearing the circumstances of the case could lead to
a general distrust of law enforcement.
MoreTraffic infraction not necessary for police stop
September 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEven though a police officer didn't see a driver commit any traffic infractions before pulling him over, the officer could
stop the car because he believed the driver might have been injured or impaired, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.
MoreInmate's complaint dismissed again
June 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn inmate's complaint, which led the Indiana Supreme Court to find the Three Strikes Law to be unconstitutional last year,
was properly dismissed under the Frivolous Law Claim by the trial court on remand, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt denies officer's summary judgment motion
June 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA federal judge denied an Indiana State Police officer's motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging he violated a
motorist's rights under the Fourth and 14th amendments, ruling it should be up to a jury to decide the issues because
the parties' stories regarding what happened during the traffic stop differ radically.
MoreTeen's Fourth Amendment rights not violated
March 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonDebating in a footnote whether a juvenile's argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated was subject to a Terry
stop analysis, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided to apply the Terry analysis to his case.
MoreMan's claims against officers can proceed
February 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of police officers in a man's civil suit, finding
the man may have Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against them.
MoreSCOTUS urged to not take Indiana case
January 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Attorney General's Office wants the nation's top jurists to reject a Hoosier case posing Fourth Amendment
questions about police searches, valid search warrants, and probable cause.
MoreCOA: Gun test-firing not an unlawful search
September 19, 2008
Michael HoskinsRoutine test-firing of handguns that police have in their custody isn't a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment
rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More7th Circuit: traffic stop constitutional
December 28, 2007
Jennifer NelsonA traffic stop in which police found drugs after telling the defendant he was free to go did not violate the defendant's
Fourth Amendment rights, ruled the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud
I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills
No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution