Police had probable cause to believe contraband was in the residence, but a warrantless search violated the Indiana Constitution when “[t]wenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there [wa]s no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest.”
M. May
Adams v. State, No. 29A02-1008-CR-903, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 31, 2011)
Evidence that a jar of marijuana was found on car floor in front of defendant passenger’s seat established that the car was “used” to commit possession of marijuana, so that the defendant’s license could be suspended under IC 34-48-4-15.
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co, No. 29A02-1008-PL-965, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2011)
In a coverage dispute regarding occurrence polices, the time of the damage, and not the time of the alleged negligent conduct that caused the damage, is the triggering event for coverage. Further, coverage under both policies were triggered under the circumstances of this case and damages are to be apportioned pursuant to the language of the insurance policies.
Saffold v. State, No. 49A05-1003-CR-180, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)
Under both the 4th Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, officer safety permitted a second pat-down search of motorist stopped for traffic infraction after officer reasonably suspected motorist might be armed, had him exit the vehicle, and found ammunition on his person in the initial pat-down and more ammunition in the vehicle.
Deloney v. State, No. 22A01-0906-CR-273, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 17, 2010)
DNA evidence is not sufficiently relevant to be admissible when the defendant “could not be excluded from a possibly infinite number of people matching the crime-scene DNA and the DNA expert cannot offer a statistical probability whether the crime scene DNA came from the defendant.”