illegal search
COA: 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.
MoreGood-faith exception not applicable
November 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana trial court erred when it denied a defendant's motion to suppress evidence because the good-faith exception
doesn't apply in this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
MoreOfficer safety justified opening ajar car door
November 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe opening of an ajar car door by a police officer during a foot chase with a suspected robber didn't violate the man's
federal or state constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
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.
MoreJudge: Officer is entitled to qualified immunity
September 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant police officer in a suit alleging he conducted a warrantless and unreasonable
search of a home to find a gun mentioned in a 911 call.
MoreJudges disagree on search validity
August 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonOn remand from the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider under a recent ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed
the forfeiture of a woman's car following the arrest of her son for driving while suspended. One judge dissented because
she believes the search of the vehicle was unreasonable in light of the recent ruling.
MoreCOA: Dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion
July 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAnalyzing the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals today determined reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct
a drug-detecting dog sniff of a private residence. Even though the state didn't argue the police had reasonable suspicion,
it established the officers relied on the warrant executed after the sniff in good faith.
MorePurse search violated Indiana Constitution
June 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges reversed a woman's conviction of possession of cocaine because the concern
for the safety of police officers doesn't justify the warrantless search of every purse that is stretched in such a way
it appears it could be holding a gun.
MoreAnimal cruelty an exigent circumstance
June 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided animal cruelty rises to the level
of exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of curtilage. The decision came in a man's appeal of his dog fighting
convictions.
MoreCOA: Police didn't need to search car after stop
June 1, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction,
ruling the warrantless search of the car the man was driving violated his federal and state constitutional rights.
MoreTransfer granted to probation search case
May 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to a motion to suppress case involving a search by a probation officer.
MoreCOA: Warrant didn't need to be admitted
December 22, 2008
Rebecca BerfangerIn a case of first impression involving whether an active arrest warrant must be admitted into evidence when the defendant
has not challenged the warrant's validity, the Court of Appeals has affirmed an appellant-defendant's conviction of
Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana that an officer discovered during a routine traffic stop.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Court Calendar
-
May 22, 2013 Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana - 5/22/13
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...
Yikes!