When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Criminal
Hartman v. State, No. 68S01-1305-CR-395, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 31, 2013).
Incriminating statements made to detectives during an early morning interrogation in the county jail were inadmissible because the defendant had invoked his right to counsel at an interrogation two days before.
Wilson v. State, No. 88A01-1301-CR-2, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2013).
Finding of contempt was not an abuse of discretion when woman had been granted use and derivative use immunity.
Sowers v. State, No. 08A02-1208-CR-640, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2013)
In this case, improper communication between bailiff and foreperson was fundamental error.
VanPatten v. State, No. 02S03-1205-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 2, 2013).
The Evidence Rule 803(4) hearsay exception for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment was not shown to apply, because there was insufficient evidence the six year-old understood the need to provide the forensic nurse with truthful information about the suspected molestation.