Prisoner’s ex post facto challenge to sex offender registration should be brought under new statutory procedure in IC 11-8-8-22.
Criminal
Davidson v. State, No. 49S02-1001-CR-41, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 25, 2010)
Appellate Rule 7 sentence review encompasses the totality of the sentence, including suspended periods and other alternative sentencing components.
Merchant v. State, No. 02A05-0910-CR-610, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)
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.
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.