When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
In Re: Name change of Jane Doe, No. 49A02-1211-MI-894, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 13, 2013).
Administrative Rule 9 was the “best option” for a domestic violence victim who had filed a name change petition to avoid her abuser but wanted to avoid disclosure of her identity in the proceeding.
In re Adoption of J.T.A., No. 37A03-1212-AD-525, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 10, 2013).
When the child’s father and the father’s fiancée were not married at the time of the adoption hearing, if the child’s adoption was granted to the father’s fiancé, then it would sever the mother’s parental rights but not the father’s.
Hartman v. State, No. 68S01-1305-CR-395, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 31, 2013).
Incriminating statements made to detectives during an early morning interrogation in the county jail were inadmissible because the defendant had invoked his right to counsel at an interrogation two days before.
Wilson v. State, No. 88A01-1301-CR-2, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2013).
Finding of contempt was not an abuse of discretion when woman had been granted use and derivative use immunity.