[T]he Indiana Constitution does not require prior judicial authorization for the execution of a warrant without knocking and announcing when justified by exigent circumstances known by police when the warrant was obtained,” although obtaining such prior judicial authorization is the better police practice.
Criminal
Wilkins v. State, No. 02S03-1010-CR-604, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)
Police had sufficient reasons to execute search warrant without knocking and announcing, and in any event the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applied to decisions not to knock and announce.
Suarez v. State, No. 02A05-1008-PC-508, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2011)
Defendant should have been provided with a copy of the in-court recording of Spanish interpreter’s guilty plea hearing translations for the defendant, after counsel had detected an irregularity in the translation when listening to the recording.
Nichols v. State, No. 29A04-1008-CR-589, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Statute, not the trial court or the DOC, determines length of a sex offender’s sex registry obligations.
Nicholson v. State, No. 55A01-1005-CR-251, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 29, 2011)
Single phone call was not “repeated or continuing harrassment” required for stalking, and even if phone calls from period two years’ earlier were considered this element was not proven.