Rosen argues we should vacate the judgment for the hospital for two reasons. First, she claims the hospital spoliated evidence, and she was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court unreasonably declining to remedy the spoliation. Second, she claims the trial court erred by sustaining the hospital’s objections to her introducing evidence that there was additional video footage that the hospital didn’t preserve. The hospital responds that each of these rulings reflects a reasonable judgment call within the trial court’s discretion. We agree with the hospital and analyze each issue in turn.
Uncategorized
Wilson v. State, No. 25A-CR-1542, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2026).
There must be additional indicia of erratic driving or unusual driving behavior before a reasonable suspicion arises that a motorist who is merely making jerky body movements is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Ocampo v. State, No. 24A-CR-2785, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2025).
The legality of a K9’s interior sniff of a vehicle before probable cause has been established to conduct a search is governed by the “instinctive entry rule,” under which a K9’s instinctive entry into a vehicle does not implicate the Fourth Amendment so long as it is not directed, encouraged, or facilitated by officers.