ILNews

Opinions Jan. 9, 2013

January 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael D. Weir
11-3321
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and no judge in regular active service asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. Weir complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a police officer seized $6,655 from him during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey A. Hanauer v. Colleen T. Hanauer
79A04-1205-PO-271
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against Jeffrey Hanauer as there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s issuance of the protective order after finding the wife is a victim of domestic violence.

Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1206-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Marty L. Armes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1207-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms probation conditions are not ambiguous, overbroad, unconstitutionally vague or unreasonable, and the trial court’s sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor is not inappropriate.

Brian E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1203-CR-141
Criminal. Affirms interlocutory order denying motion to suppress evidence seized after officers stopped the vehicle in which Green was a passenger.
 
Jack Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1205-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Troy Crim v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Gerald Mickens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-PC-1162
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Juan C. Duarte-Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-PC-238
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT