Uncuffed driver with second officer five feet from driver’s side door while first officer was standing by the open driver’s door was “unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment” so that warrantless search of compartment was permissible under Arizona v. Gant.
Criminal
Brogan v. State, No. 57A04-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2010)
When sentence for sex offense was completely served, and original sentencing order did not require sex offender registration, and offender was imprisoned in another county for an unrelated offense when he filed his “motion” under sex offense cause number to be relieved of statute-imposed registration duty on ex post facto grounds, the sex offense court was not the appropriate forum for the registration challenge.
L.W. v. State, No. 49A02-0909-JV-841, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 22, 2010)
Telephone tip describing a burglar from informant who identified himself when he called the police did not, in combination with all the other circumstances of the case, give the police the reasonable suspicion required for an investigatory stop.
Lehman v. State, No. 35A05-0909-CR-513, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 13, 2010)
Confidential informant’s taped statements as to what occurred in controlled buy were hearsay and were inadmissible as well under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule; informant’s statements during the buy were not admitted for the truth of their content and hence were not hearsay.
Shepherd v. State, No. 70A01-0908-PC-388, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Apr. 14, 2010)
Defense counsel’s representation of key prosecution witness on unrelated pending charges created a prima facie case of actual conflict and resulted in counsel’s failure to cross-examine the witness on the charges, resulting in ineffective assistance.