When auto’s tail light had a hole in it such that the white light from the hole was “overwhelming,” as long as there was some red light plainly visible at 500 feet there was no violation of the tail lamp statute and the stop predicated on a tail lamp violation was illegal.
C. Bradford
Montgomery v. State, No. 82A01-1404-CR-163, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 11, 2014).
NPLEx system’s records of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine sales evidence were not “testimonial” and hence their admission did not violate the accused’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
In re C.R., No. 79A05-1404-GU-176. __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2014).
Grandparents have no right to request psychological evaluations for their grandchildren against their parents’ wishes.
Gallien v. State, No. 22A01-1402-PC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Two burglaries committed one after the other, four miles apart, were a single episode of criminal conduct subject to the cap on consecutive sentencing, and appellate counsel’s assistance was ineffective for failure to raise the issue as a sentencing error.
Harris v. State, No. 02A03-1402-CR-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2014).
Exigent circumstances justified officers’ warrantless seizure of a handgun they saw defendant place inside an apartment front door as they approached, so that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, Article I, § 11.