Monday, March 14, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Two (make that three) Indiana opinions today from 7th Circuit
In U.S. v. McBride (ND Ind., Springmann), an 8-page opinion, Judge Sykes writes:
Following a routine traffic stop, a consent search of Willie McBride’s car turned up crack cocaine, marijuana, and a loaded handgun. An indictment followed, and McBride was charged with possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). McBride moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his car on the ground that the officer who performed the search obtained his consent only after unreasonably prolonging the traffic stop. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. McBride then pleaded guilty to both counts, reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal, and the court sentenced him to consecutive 60-month terms. The only question presented by this appeal is whether the police officer violated McBride’s rights under the Fourth Amendment— thus vitiating his consent to search—by detaining him beyond the time needed to complete the traffic stop. We conclude that he did not and affirm the judgment.In In re Davis (SD Ind., Magnus-Stinson), a 10-page opinion, Judge Flaum writes:
In 2007, Linda Reeves obtained a money judgment against Gerald Davis in Indiana state court for a violation of the Indiana Home Improvement Contracts Act (“the Act”), Ind. Code (“IC”) §§ 24-5- 11-1 et seq. The Indiana Code provides that a home improvement supplier who violates the Act “commits a deceptive act.” IC § 24-5-11-14.
Davis filed for bankruptcy on October 25, 2007, before satisfying the Indiana state court judgment. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Reeves filed an adversary action against Davis, seeking to have the $77,000 judgment declared non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Based on the Indiana court’s finding that Davis had committed a “deceptive act,” Reeves alleged that Davis had engaged in fraudulent conduct. The bankruptcy court determined that the debt was dischargeable, finding that Davis lacked the requisite intent to deceive or defraud. On appeal, the district court affirmed, as do we, for the reasons set forth below.
In Joseph v. Elan Motorsports (SD Ind., McMinney), an 11-page opinion, Judge Posner writes:
[T]he decision of the district court must be reversed with directions to allow the amended complaint, substituting Elan Inc. as defendant with relation back to the date of the original complaint.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 14, 2011 12:08 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions