« Ind. Decisions - Two Indiana cases today from 7th Circuit, plus seed corn case out of Illinois | Main | Ind. Decisions - Judge denies State claim that districts, led by Hamilton Southeastern Schools, have no standing to sue »
Monday, November 29, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 9 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Donnie Salyer v. State of Indiana , a 9-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:
Our court has granted the permissive interlocutory appeal filed by Donnie Salyer (“Salyer”) challenging the Starke Circuit Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. Salyer argues that the search warrant was invalid because the address and description of his property contained on the warrant were incorrect. Concluding that the incorrect address information did not invalidate the warrant, we affirm. * * *In S.D. v. State of Indiana , a 13-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:
Upon realizing the error in the address, Officer Keen should have corrected the error in the warrant and affidavit and obtained a new warrant prior to searching Salyer's residence. Indeed, had Officer Keen not been the executing officer, we might well reach a different result. However, because Officer Keen knew the precise location of Salyer's residence, prepared the search warrant and accompanying affidavit, and executed the search warrant, there was no risk that Officer Keen would enter the wrong residence or undertake indiscriminate searches of other homes.
Accordingly, under the unique facts and circumstances before us, we are compelled to conclude that Officer Keen's execution of the search warrant was reasonable and did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it denied Salyer's motion to suppress.
S.D. appeals his juvenile delinquency adjudication for what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. Before S.D. was interviewed about the child molesting allegation, he and his guardian were given time to consult with each other. However, the consultation took place in a room where video cameras were recording, and S.D. and his guardian were aware of that fact. S.D. contends that the admission of his subsequent confession constitutes fundamental error. We conclude that there is fundamental error because S.D. was in custody when he confessed and was not given meaningful consultation with his guardian as required by Indiana’s juvenile waiver of rights statute because the video cameras constituted an improper police presence and infringed on the privacy necessary to any meaningful consultation. We therefore reverse.In Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana - "Walker Whatley, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his motion for re-trial under Ind. Trial Rule 60(B). Whatley raises one issue, which we revise and restate as follows: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for re-trial under Rule 60(B). We affirm."
NFP civil opinions today (3):
NFP criminal opinions today (6):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 29, 2010 11:15 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions