When the defendant agreed to go to the station for questioning about another matter, he had already received his ticket for driving without his seatbelt, so the subsequent search of his person made for the safety of the officer who would drive him to the station did not violate the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. But because defendant had not agreed to be driven to the station by the police for the questioning, the search of his person was unreasonable under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Criminal
State v. Manuwal, No. 50S05-0805-CR-269, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)
The operating while intoxicated offense applies to an individual driving on his own private property.
Graham v. State, No. 03S04-0809-CR-00507, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2009)
Evidence that the defendant did not offer his hands behind his back to be cuffed was not sufficient to prove he forcibly resisted law enforcement.
Rivera v. Illinois, No. 07-9995, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 27, 2009)
State law, not the Constitution, determines the consequences of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge, when all jurors selected are qualified and unbiased.
Tyler v. State, No. 69S04-0801-CR-3, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 31, 2009)
[A] party may not introduce testimony via the Protected Person Statute if the same person testifies in open court as to the same matters.