Articles

In 1st impression case, COA says officers must explain training to get warrants based on drug odors

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed the denial of a motion to suppress drug-related evidence found during a search of a Greene County man’s home. The appellate court ruled on an issue of first impression that probable cause for a search warrant cannot be based only on an officer’s detection of the smell of marijuana without additional information about the officer’s training.

Read More

Opinions Dec. 17, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Emmanuel Torres, et al.
20A-CR-943
Criminal. Reverses the grant of Ramon Sanchez’s and Emmanuel Torres’ motions to suppress evidence in Clinton Superior Court obtained after their vehicles were stopped for failing to use their turn signals for at least 200 feet before turning at a stop sign. Finds that Sanchez’s and Torres’ failure to signal a turn until they reached a stop sign was enough for Frankfort officer Kaleb Thompson to establish a reasonable belief that Indiana Code § 9-21-8-25 had been violated. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Paul Mathias concurs with separate opinion.

Read More

Opinions Dec. 16, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nathan C. Albrecht v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-945
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Nathan Albrecht’s motion to suppress evidence found that led to the state of Indiana filing 10 counts of child pornography against him. Finds that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed for the second search warrant and that the second search warrant was particularized in terms of the items to be seized and in terms of the scope of the search to be performed.

Read More

Opinions Dec. 15, 2020

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Linda Gunn and Christopher Gunn v. Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel, P.C.
19-3514
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Jane Magnus Stinson.
Civil. Vacates the Indiana Southern District Court’s judgment dismissing a complaint brought by Linda and Christopher Gunn and remands the case with instructions to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Finds that the Gunns do not contend that the contested sentence in the defendant’s dunning letter caused them any concrete harm.

Read More

Opinions Dec. 14, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Willard G. Merkel v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-1475
Criminal. Affirms the denial of Willard G. Merkel’s petition to modify his 12-year sentence for conviction of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds the Carroll Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion and Merkel’s reliance on Supreme Court orders directing trial courts to review sentences of nonviolent inmates due to COVID-19 is misplaced.

Read More

Violent offender’s appeal seeking COVID-19 release ‘misplaced’

Despite a convicted man’s claims of compromised health that raised his risk of contracting the novel coronavirus behind bars, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined Monday he wasn’t the sort of offender the Indiana Supreme Court had in mind when it urged courts earlier this year to consider release of detainees who posed little risk.

Read More

Opinions Dec. 11, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Evan D. Wilford v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-1305
Criminal. Affirms the Vigo Superior Court’s order that Evan Wilford serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence following the court’s revocation of his probation. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its order.

 

Read More

Opinions Dec. 10, 2020

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline on Wednesday:
Clinton Loehrlein v. State of Indiana
20S-CR-376
Criminal. Affirms Clinton Loehrlein’s murder and attempted murder convictions and the the Vanderburgh Circuit Court’s finding that he was not insane at the time he murdered his wife and attempted to kill his daughters. Finds that the attorney juror in his trial did commit gross misconduct by falsely answering a juror questionnaire, but that given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the strong evidence of Loehrlein’s sanity, it is not likely he was harmed.

Read More