Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.
C. Goff
Payne v. State, No. 20S-CR-313, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 18, 2020).
When there is no conflict in expert opinion that a defendant is legally insane, the State must present other probative evidence from which to infer the defendant’s sanity.
Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield, No. 20S-CT-88, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 3, 2020).
Courts should determine if a landowner has a duty based on whether the defendant knew or had reason to know of any present and specific contemporaneous evidence that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the probability or likelihood of imminent harm.
S.H. v. D.W., No. 19S-PO-118, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).
The Protection Order Act does not permit the reissuance, renewal, or extension of the protective order when there has been a single episode of physical violence with no follow-up act, no threat that the violence will recur, and no other reasonable grounds to believe there is present intent to harm.
A.M. v. State, No. 19S-JV-603, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).
A court should evaluate a juvenile’s claim of ineffective counsel in a delinquency disposition-modification hearing by using a due process standard; it should consider counsel’s overall performance to determine if the child received a fundamentally fair hearing resulting in a disposition that served his best interests.