When one occupant had consented to officers’ home entry and the other had refused consent, after officers arrested the objecting occupant and then returned an hour later and again obtained the first occupant’s consent, the officers’ entry was legal.
Harper v. State, No. 49A04-1305-CR-222, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 2014).
Officer who lies to gain entrance to a home, without exigent circumstances and after consensual entry was denied, is not acting within the course of official duties so as to justify the arrest of the home owner for resisting arrest.
Cunningham v. State, No. 19A05-1310-CR-489, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 27, 2014).
When circumstances did not support a pat-down of stopped motorist, officer’s statement he would pat-down the motorist if the motorist chose to get out of the car was an ultimatum rather than a choice to which the motorist could consent.
Pietrowski v. State, No. 46A03-1306-CR-222, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 18, 2014).
Defense motion to exclude intoxication evidence, based on argument legislation transferring Department of Toxicology from Indiana University to the State abrogated existing toxicology regulations and required adoption of new ones, was properly denied.
State v. Coats, No. 49S02-1305-CR-328, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Feb. 18, 2014).
A trial court has no discretion “to refuse to order commitment to the DMHA where it concludes that a defendant found not competent to stand trial can never be returned to competency.”