Police placement of a GPS device in a package opened by UPS did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but police use of a “parcel wire” to monitor the opening of the package once defendant had taken it into his home was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment; police could not enter the home without a warrant under the “exigent circumstances” exception because the exigent circumstances – the wire’s alert that the package was opening – were the result of their Fourth Amendment violation.
E. Najam
Town of Cedar Lake v. Alessia, No. 45A03-1207-PL-316,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 21, 2013).
The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.
Delagrange v. State, No. 49A04-1203-CR-144, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2013).
Reverses child exploitation convictions in part because “[t]he State presented no evidence the victims exhibited their genitals [footnote omitted] or intended to satisfy anyone’s sexual desire.”
White v. State, No. 90A04-1111-CR-621, __N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 21,2012),
Statements of murder victim were properly admitted under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5), the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception.
Cleveland v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-1110-CT-948, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 3, 2012).
Defendant did not commit misconduct under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) when it did not supplement prior deposition testimony of a nonparty.