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.
In re P.F., No. 25A-JC-10, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2025).
Trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts were not required to reunify child with parents; there was insufficient evidence that all the elements of the Multiple CHINS provision (Ind. Code 31-34-21-5.6(b)(7)) were proven. “Removed from the home of the child’s parent…under a dispositional decree” necessarily means that the child was placed outside the parent’s home for any period of time pursuant to a dispositional decree. A trial home visit at a parent’s house is not “removal.”
In re Paternity of G.S., No. 25A-AD-100, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2025).
Paternity proceeding was not required to be transferred to the county where adoption was pending.
Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-196, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2025).
Generative AI can produce citations to non-existent authorities, and the Court cautioned litigants to verify citations before including them in briefs.
In re P.R., No. 25A-JC-825, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 18, 2025).
Special judge could have a magistrate cover a hearing, but not the same magistrate that previously heard the merits of the case before the change of judge was filed.