Opening a door to answer a knock by police, neither abandons a person’s privacy interest in their home, nor is it an invitation to the officers knocking to enter the home. Moreover, probable cause alone is not enough to justify a warrantless search of a home. It must be joined with exigent circumstances to dispense with the warrant requirement.
L. Weissmann
Trejo v. State, No. 22A-CR-1817, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 2, 2023).
Lack of volition is not a defense to an alleged probation violation.
Norton v. State, No. 22A-CR-2314, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2023).
There is no provision of the appellate rules which permits trial courts to expand the time limit in which to seek appeal as prescribed by Appellate Rule 9
Wainscott v. State, No. 22A-CR-1817, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 16, 2023).
A warrant authorizing a search, testing, or other analysis of an item, tangible or intangible, is deemed executed when the item is seized by a law enforcement officer.
Wellman v. State, No. 22A-CR-1673, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 10, 2023).
When a trial court grants a defendant’s motion for continuance because of the State’s failure to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, the resulting delay is not chargeable to the defendant. It does not matter whether the State was negligent in complying the discovery request.