Tort claim notice, IG report create more legal obstacles for Hill

Though Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill won’t face criminal charges stemming from allegations that he groped at least four women at a party in March, he may not legally be out of the woods. A tort claim notice filed with Hill’s office last week announced the women’s plans to seek civil redress against the Attorney General, an action that could have a direct impact on taxpayers’ wallets.

Read More

Suit against Hill could cost taxpayers; accusers to name state

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office is now in the process of investigating a complaint filed against it, the state and Attorney General Curtis Hill after four women who publicly accused Hill of groping them at a party filed official notice of a civil lawsuit. If the women succeed on their claims against state defendants, taxpayers could be on the hook to pay any judgments.

Read More

Smartphone privacy first impression case splits COA

Law enforcement cannot force a Hamilton County woman to unlock her smartphone as part of criminal investigation because doing so would violate Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, a divided panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals held on an issue of first impression that combined constitutional law with technological advancements.

Read More
SEO Pleading the 5th mode (IL Illustration/Brad Turner)

Court order to access smartphone stirs 5th amendment concerns

When does an action become testimonial? What role do technological advances play in Fifth Amendment analyses? When can law enforcement compel people to unlock their cellphones without infringing on constitutional rights? The Indiana Court of Appeals is grappling with those questions as it considers a Fifth Amendment case of first impression.

Read More

State’s inaction does not allow man to appeal sentence

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a defendant’s claim that he should be given an opportunity to appeal his sentence, an option he waived by entering into a plea agreement, even though the trial court erroneously indicated he had a right to appeal and the state did not object to that advisement.

Read More