The roadside search of a passenger after a routine traffic stop was unduly invasive and marijuana discovered in her possession should not have been admitted into evidence at trial.
Appeals
Dill v. State, No. 59A01-1610-CR-2449, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 22, 2017).
Dealing in methamphetamine is not the same conduct as conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine; State is not barred by Indiana’s double jeopardy statute from prosecution after defendant entered a guilty plea in federal court.
Estate of Kent v. Kerr, No. 55A01-1612-ES-2907, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2017).
Prior to the decedent’s death, Ind. Code § 29-1-9-1 permits the prospective beneficiaries of a future inheritance to execute a family settlement agreement to determine their anticipated rights or interests in the decedent’s estate.
Bowman v. State, No. 49A02-1606-MI-1463, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 16, 2017).
Seizure of cash exceeded the scope of the search warrants. “The search warrant did not (and could not) authorize the seizure of any and all currency; instead, that currency must be found to be ‘derived directly or indirectly from, produced through, or realized through’ drug trafficking.”
Jones v. Wilson, No. 03A04-1701-PL-233, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 15, 2017).
Using the broad type of plaintiff/broad type of harm analysis, third-party criminal act was not foreseeable. Defendant, wrestling event promoter, had no duty to plaintiff, attendee, who was attacked in the parking lot leaving the event.