Monday, January 30, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 6 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In State of Indiana v. Johnnie S. McCaa, a 20-page opinion with a separate concurrance, Judge Bradford writes:
In this prosecution of Appellee-Defendant Johnnie McCaa for one count of Class A misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (“OWI”) in a Manner that Endangers Another Person, Appellant-Plaintiff the State of Indiana appeals from the trial court’s grant of McCaa’s motion to suppress evidence. After an initial stop of McCaa for erratic driving, police directed McCaa to move his semi-trailer truck to another location for further investigation. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting McCaa’s motion to suppress evidence generated following the initial stop. We reverse and remand with instructions. * * *In Latoyia Billingsley v. State of Indiana , an 8-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Because we conclude that the search and seizure of McCaa violated neither his federal nor state constitutional rights, we reverse the trial court’s grant of McCaa’s motion to suppress and remand with instructions for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
KIRSCH, J., concurs.
BARNES, J., concurs with separate opinion: I begrudgingly concur here. I respect Judge Bradford’s analysis, but write to emphasize that only the unique and rare circumstances at play in this case allow me to vote to concur. If police had not been forced to initially pull McCaa over at a location that caused him to block all traffic on a well-traveled highway, which necessitated having McCaa continue driving to a different location so that FSTs could safely be administered, my vote might not be the same. No mistake should be made that law enforcement officers could or should allow a person to drive a vehicle, observe the driver, and buttress their probable cause because of these observations. These circumstances are the proverbial “once in a lifetime,” fortunately for police.
Latoyia Billingsley appeals her conviction for driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor within ten years of a prior infraction for driving while suspended.1 Billingsley raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain her conviction. We affirm.In A.T. (Mother) v. G.T. (Father), a 9-page opinion, Judge Darden writes:
A.T. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for a change of judge in a custody modification action filed by G.T. (“Father”). We reverse and remand with instructions. * * *NFP civil opinions today (3):
The trial court should have automatically granted the request for automatic change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B). Furthermore, the trial court should not have held the modification hearing, as it was deprived of jurisdiction by the timely filing of the Trial Rule 76(B) request.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 30, 2012 12:56 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions