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.
Supreme
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.
State v. Ellis, 21S-CR-159, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 26, 2021).
When a defendant is processed for home detention, a waiver of the “rights against search and seizure” clearly encompasses the right to be free from search and seizure absent reasonable suspicion.
New Nello Operating Co., LLC v CompressAir, No. 20S-CC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 22, 2021).
Continuity of ownership is necessary for the de-facto-merger and mere-continuation exceptions to apply to the buyer acquiring the seller’s assets, but not its liabilities.
Branscomb v. Wal-mart Stores East, L.P., No. 20S-CQ-515, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 7, 2021).
Store manager cannot be held liable for negligence when he is not directly involved in the accident at issue.