Some questions on police “information sheet,” purportedly used for administrative booking purposes, were investigative in nature under the circumstances of the case, and as the defendant was in custody when given the sheet to fill out the investigative questions were Miranda “interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings before defendant filled the sheet out in order for his answers to be admissible in evidence.
Appeals
Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90A04-1101-PL-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 13, 2012).
“[J]udicial review of an administrative determination of just compensation should be limited to the consideration of whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding and order and whether the action constitutes an abuse of discretion, is arbitrary, capricious, or in excess of statutory authority as revealed by the uncontradicted facts.”
Woodson v. State, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Officer lacked reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop merely because individual stopped was in a drug “hot-zone.”
Sickels v. State, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 6, 2012).
Conviction on three counts of nonsupport for failure to pay in gross support order for three children did not violate Indiana Double Jeopardy law’s actual evidence doctrine; nonsupport restitution “victims” were the children, not the custodial parent; restitution order erroneously characterized restitution as “a civil judgment.”
Williams v. State, No. 49A02-1103-CR-266, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 11, 2012).
Statutory confidentiality for Board of Pharmacy prescription database protects prescription subject’s physician-patient and pharmacist-patient privileges, and subject’s criminal defense discovery request for prescription records waived these privileges’ protection, so that Board’s objections to disclosure based on confidentiality were without merit.