« Environment - More on: NIPSCO: Disposal of coal ash in NW Indiana safe [Updated] | Main | Ind. Law - This week at the General Assembly - Week 5 »

Monday, February 09, 2009

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 7 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In State of Indiana v. Jason B. Brown , a 7-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Jason Brown was charged with operating a motor vehicle after his driving privileges had been suspended for life, a Class C felony. Brown filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his alleged unconstitutional detention. The trial court granted the motion, which effectively precluded further prosecution. Pursuant to IC 35-38-4-2(5), the State appeals, raising the following issue: whether the initial stop and detention of Brown constituted unreasonable police activity in violation of Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. We affirm. * * *

The State contends that the trial court erred in granting Brown's motion to suppress. Specifically, it contends that Deputy Lennartz's request for identification was reasonable police activity under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because the interaction between Brown and Deputy Lennartz was a consensual encounter. As such, the State contends that all evidence obtained during the stop should be admissible. * * *

The State contends that Deputy Lennartz's encounter with Brown was reasonable since the Deputy did not stop Brown. Instead, Brown stopped himself by pulling into the lane and parking his truck. The State also argues that Deputy Lennartz's purpose in approaching Brown was reasonable since he merely wanted to relay to Brown the need for the partygoers to be quiet. The request for Brown's driver's license arose only after Deputy Lennartz noticed Brown's nervousness. The State offers that, while nervousness may be insufficient to support reasonable suspicion, Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528, 534 (Ind. 2003), here there is no need for reasonable suspicion to validate Deputy Lennartz's encounter with Brown since the encounter was neither a stop nor a detention. * * *

By his late arrival, Brown could not have been the subject of the initial complaint. The trial court concluded, “Given that the Defendant had not yet arrived at the party when the officers had informed the persons present at the party of the noise complaint, the Court does not find that there was any need to interact with the Defendant and thus no need to ascertain his identity.” We agree. We cannot say that the State sustained its burden of proving that the suppression order was contrary to law. Affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

In the Matter of K.H. v. Elkhart Office of Family and Children (NFP) - " A thorough review of the record leaves this Court convinced that the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights to K.H. is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we find no error. "

Tony D. Camp v. Lily A. Camp (NFP) - "IC 31-17-7-4(a) excludes from distribution all property acquired by either spouse in his or her own right after final separation. Consequently, to the extent the trial court included cattle born or acquired after the date of final separation, the trial court erred. However, there is no evidence in the record to indicate how many cattle were included in the value of the marital cattle. Further, the parties stipulated to the value of the cattle, within fifty cents of each other, and that was the valuation used by the trial court. Accordingly, there is no showing of prejudice. "

NFP criminal opinions today (5):

Jason J. Steury v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ricky Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Phillip C. Wopshall v. State of Indiana (NFP)

William Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Robert Henson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 9, 2009 12:52 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions