Police officer in full uniform working as a private security guard was acting as a law enforcement officer under the circumstances of the case; officer making a Terry frisk could remove sharp object from defendant’s pocket, but when officer realized object was a pen cap and not a weapon he could not take the plastic bag he observed in the cap out and inspect its contents, even though he testified bags in such caps were often used, in his experience, to store narcotics.
J. Baker
Lyons v. State, No. 76A03-1112-CR-582, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 11, 2012).
Clinical psychologist’s testimony about general characteristics common to child abuse victims was properly admitted as Evidence Rule 702(a) expert “specialized knowledge” which was based on observations of victims and accordingly was not “scientific.”
Ervin v. State, No. 29A05-1109-CR-454, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 30, 2012
Trial court properly concluded that evidence should not be suppressed as Ind. Code § 9-30-2-2 was not implicated. The statute provides that an officer may not arrest a person “for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on an Indiana highway” unless the officer is in uniform or a marked police vehicle, but defendant was not arrested for violating a law regulating the use of a motor vehicle.
Gagan v. Yast, No. 45A05-1107-CT-377, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., April 5, 2012).
Attorney’s alleged defamatory statements made against his former clients were protected on the grounds of qualified privilege.
State v. Holtsclaw, No. 49A02-1108-CR-743, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2012).
State cannot appeal the denial of a motion to correct error, so that here motion to correct aimed at successful motion to suppress could not be appealed and appeal of suppression motion itself was untimely.