A general habitual offender enhancement and a specialized habitual offender enhancement should run concurrently.
Doctor v. State, No. 82A01-1507-CR-844, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2016).
Officers’ testimony that they could not see the occupants inside of the vehicle provided reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop for a window tint statute violation.
Cherry v. State, No. 49A02-1505-CR-340, ___N.E.3d___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2016).
Pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 617(a)(3), the trial court properly admitted statements made to arresting officers during the custodial interrogation when recording equipment malfunctioned or failed to operate.
Harris v. State, No. 83A01-1509-CR-1311, __N.E.3D__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 27, 2016).
Defendant’s name appearing on NPLEx did not provide an independent basis of reasonable suspicion that would justify further investigation after a seat belt enforcement stop.
May v. State, 35A04-1603-CR-673, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., July 29, 2016).
Because defendants are placed on parole OR probation, and defendant complied with the terms of parole, it was reasonable for defendant not to report to probation before his release from parole and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.