To mark the 46th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, two groups rallied at the Indiana Statehouse Jan. 22, and showed that of the divisions among Americans, the gulf over abortion rights remains among the widest.
The Supreme Court struggled Wednesday over what to do about an $8.5 million class-action settlement involving Google and privacy concerns in which all the money went to lawyers and nonprofit groups, but nothing was paid to 129 million people who used Google to perform internet searches.
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.
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.
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.
A time-barred complaint and contradictory statements made by a woman who claimed her privacy was violated during her knee-replacement surgery led the Indiana Court of appeals to affirm summary judgment for six defendants in a medical invasion of privacy case.
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.
A rule designed to provide internet users with an extra layer of control over their web use history is dead before it ever fully came to life, but data privacy law experts say there’s little reason for consumers to panic.
After an Ohio man’s convictions of armed robbery in Dearborn County were overturned by a divided Indiana Court of Appeals in August, the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state’s appeal and decide if cellphone users have a reasonable expectation to the privacy of their tracked location information.
Noting technology is advancing faster that privacy law, an Indiana Court of Appeals judge is urging the Indiana Supreme Court to revisit precedent regarding invasion of privacy claims.
A Grant County man argued threatening phone calls could not be linked to him, but he was unable to overcome the testimony by people who knew the sound of his voice.
A defendant’s rambling letter to a victim’s mother was not enough to uphold his convictions for attempted obstruction of justice and invasion of privacy, but it was sufficient to support a lesser charge.
The federal government wants to see Lance Armstrong's medical records from his treatments for cancer.
The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected Thursday several claims raised by Walgreen Co. on rehearing, holding that the company and its pharmacists are liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff after the pharmacist divulged her prescription records to a third party.
A Marion County jury verdict affirmed Friday by the Indiana Court of Appeals upholds a $1.4 million verdict for a Walgreen pharmacy customer whose prescription information was provided to a third party and sets a national precedent, according to the lawyer who argued the case.
A man who says he is suffering negative repercussions after a mental health facility released his medical information to a family member will be able to move forward with his case in court.
Walgreen’s appeal of $1.8M judgment in favor of customer raises patient privacy issues.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed Monday to referee a dispute over police access to hotels' guest information without first getting a search warrant.
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.