Although jacket possessor was out of vehicle and handcuffed, officer’s search of the jacket in the car did not violate Arizona v. Gant when three occupants remained in the vehicle, suspect had acted suspiciously about the jacket, and car was in high crime area.
Criminal
Anderson v. State, No. 49A05-1105-CR-243, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2012).
DNA felony conviction swab statute’s “mistake” exception applied to probation officer’s taking of cheek swab from defendant when abstract of judgment officer had indicated a D felony conviction, with no mention of alternative misdemeanor sentencing.
Adams v. State, No. 29S02-1109-CR-542, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 2, 2012).
To impose the IC 35-48-4-15(a) mandatory license suspension for using a vehicle in the commission of a drug offense, the “State must demonstrate that a defendant made more than an incidental use of a motor vehicle in committing his offense”; evidence defendant “possessed a jar of marijuana by keeping the jar on the floorboard in front of him while he sat in the passenger seat” supported suspension; it was “not a situation in which a defendant merely happened to possess a small bag of marijuana in his pocket without making any direct use of the vehicle to do so.”
Jones v. United States, No. 10–1259, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 23, 2012).
Warrantless placement of a wireless GPS monitor on underbody of auto was a Fourth Amendment “search.”
Hill v. State, No. 45S03-1105-PC-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2012).
Standard for assessing effective performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the Baum “due-course-of-law” standard, not the two-prong Sixth Amendment Strickland standard.