Although defendant’s roommate waived his 4th Amendment right as a home detention participant, roommate did not completely waive his 4th Amendment right and the police could not conduct a suspicionless search of defendant’s room.
B. Barteau
Wilson v. State, No. 79A05-1107-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May, 9, 2012).
By fleeing from his automobile at the approach of the police the driver abandoned the vehicle for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so that he could not object to a search of the vehicle.
Yanez v. State, No. 49A02-1104-CR-362, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2012).
When officer who made the investigatory stop did not testify as to her reasons for making the stop and supporting officer’s testimony amounted only to “postulation” as for reasons for the initial stop, there was no showing that there was any constitutional basis for stopping the defendant.
McWhorter v. State, No. 33A05-1010-PC-685, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 23, 2011)
When defendant admitted he broke into a home without permission, his statement that he was confused about where he was at the time did not amount to an avowal of innocence preventing a guilty plea.
In the Matter of the Commitment of A.L., No. 49A02-1001-MH-76, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 23, 2010)
Even though petition for emergency detention alleged only severe disability as a basis, trial court could properly rely in its decision on dangerousness as well.