Police may not interrogate a person in custody without proper Miranda warnings or else the State risks having those custodial statements suppressed in a criminal trial. However, not every station house interview implicates Miranda. Miranda warnings are only required when a person is in custody; when a person’s’ freedom of movement is curtailed to a level associated with formal arrest and when he or she is under the same inherently coercive pressures in the police station as those at issue in Miranda v. Arizona.
State v. Timbs, 20S-MI-289, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 10, 2021).
The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.
Koziski v. State, 20A-CR-1889, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2021).
Multiple convictions based on separate provisions under the child-molesting statute should be analyzed using the double jeopardy test set forth in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) as opposed to Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020).
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.
Atkins v. Crawford County Clerk’s Office, No. 20A-MI-2160, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 1, 2021).
Trial court improperly denied a motion to waive the filing fee when plaintiff filed a verified affidavit of indigency with documentation of her cash assets. If the trial court had any doubt about plaintiff’s indigency, the trial court could have waived the filing fee, and, upon a later discovery that the litigant has the means to pay, order reimbursement of the waived fee; or a trial court may hold a hearing to examine the litigant’s potential indigency.