Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.
Supreme
Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).
Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Gulzar v. State, No. 19S-XP-673, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 24, 2020).
Amended expungement statute, which clarifies that the “date of conviction” for a felony reduced to a misdemeanor is the date of the felony conviction, applies retroactively.
Gammons v. State, No. 20S-CR-22, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 26, 2020).
Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 10.0300 dilutes the causal standard for self-defense; the instructional error was not harmless and case was remanded for a new trial.
State v. Ryder, No. 20S-CR-435, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 29, 2020).
Blood-draw search warrant application satisfied the filing requirement under Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(a) because the signing judge’s uncontroverted certification that an affidavit had been delivered to her at the time of the warrant’s authorization established that the filing requirement had been satisfied.