The excessiveness test announced in State v. Timbs, 134 N.E.3d 12 (Ind. 2019), has two dimensions: instrumentality and proportionality. Instrumentality is not at issue in here because Timbs acknowledged that he used the forfeited vehicle to traffic heroin. As to proportionality, courts must look to whether the forfeiture is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses and the claimant’s culpability. This inquiry turns on three factors: the culpability of the claimant for misusing the forfeited property, the harshness of the forfeiture, and the gravity of the claimant’s underlying offenses.
M. Massa
Combs v. State, 20S-CR-616, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2021).
The plain view exception to the warrant requirement may justify the seizure of a vehicle believed to be the fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime provided that police are lawfully in a position from which to view the vehicle, its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and police have a lawful right of access to the vehicle.
City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals v. UJ-Eighty Corp., No. 21S-PL-77, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 23, 2021).
City did not delegate zoning authority to university, but defined fraternities and sororities in zoning law based on their relationship with the university.
Johnson v. State, 20S-CR-655, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 1, 2020).
Evidence of drug involvement, and whether the suspect and officer are in a confined space, are both part of the totality of the circumstances contributing to an officer’s reasonable belief that a subject is armed and dangerous as to permit a Terry frisk.
Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).
When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.