Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
P. Mathias
Grayson v. State, No. 49A05-1505-CR-350, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2016).
Anonymous tip of individual in silver or gray car waving a gun in apartment parking lot provided reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop of defendant, who was in the only occupied silver car in the parking lot; officer’s observations then gave probable cause for search.
State v. Hancock, No. 39A05-1506-CR-633, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2016).
Elements of Ohio residential burglary offense were not “substantially similar” to Indiana offense, and therefore did not establish serious violent felon (SVF) status.
Whitely v. State, No. 49A02-1501-CR-50, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2015).
Inventory search of vehicle was not unreasonable despite officers’ significant deviation from written department policy for such searches; breach of policy, without more, did not show that the inventory was pretext for an investigatory search.
Wartell v. Lee, No. 02A03-1503-PL-81, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2015).
An allegedly defamatory statement related to a person’s trade, profession, office, or occupation is not defamatory per se, but the statement must impute a serious level of misconduct in a way that does not require reference to extrinsic facts for context.