« Environment - Pollution by airports; state official says gas station too expensive to clean up | Main | Law - Wineries sue over in-state shipments in Indiana, related matters »

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Sex offender registry, evidence issue, eminent domain question addressed today

Included among the five cases decided today by the Court of Appeals are:

A.O. v. State of Indiana, where, according to Judge Mathias' opinion:

A.O. was adjudicated a delinquent child in Hendricks Circuit Court and ordered to register with the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. He appeals, raising one issue: whether the State established by clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to repeat a sex offense. We reverse.
In State of Indiana v. Mark J. Murray appealed the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The Court, in an opinion written by Judge Riley, affirmed. Some quotes:
The State now argues that reasonable suspicion of Murray’s criminal activity does not have to be based upon Officer Moore’s personal knowledge, but rather, Officer Moore can rely on the collective knowledge of the Seymour Police Department regardless of whether it is conveyed to him. Therefore, the State asserts that any knowledge that Officer Carpenter may have had in regards to Murray’s criminal activity was imputed to Officer Moore before he made the investigatory stop of Murray’s vehicle. In support of their collective knowledge argument, the State relies on Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232, 236 (Ind. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1058, where our supreme court recognized that “as long as participating officers seeking the issuance of a search warrant collectively have probable cause, their individual knowledge can be imputed to the officer signing the affidavit in support of the search warrant.” * * * Although we applaud the State’s novel argument, the cases relied upon are clearly distinguishable from the case at hand. * * * The collective knowledge cannot be relied upon after the fact. To hold otherwise would allow police officers to conduct investigatory stops before having any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
In State of Indiana v. John M. Dunn, et al, an opinion written by Senior Judge Ratliff, the question was the starting point for the computation of prejudgment interest in an eminent domain case. Some quotes:
The State contends that the trial court incorrectly computed the prejudgment interest on the damages awarded by the jury. The trial court ordered the State to pay interest from the date of the filing of the complaint. The State argues that the trial court erred. We agree. * * *

The trial court erroneously ordered that the computation of prejudgment interest on the jury’s verdict commence upon the date the State filed its complaint. Prejudgment interest should be computed from the date the State tendered the appraised value to the circuit court clerk, more specifically, February 7, 2003. This matter is remanded to the trial court for a recalculation of the prejudgment interest owed by the State to the Dunns consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 17, 2005 08:40 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions