« Courts - There are 14 SCOTUS cases that are waiting decision, next announcement day is this Thursday | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Indiana Youth Group files in federal court in response to BMV Commissioner's action »
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 18 NFP)
For publication opinions today (3):
In Revas Spencer v. Tiffany Specer, a 4-page opinion, Judge May writes:
Revas Spencer (Husband) appeals the denial of the Agreed Order Dismissing Order of Protection he and Tiffany Spencer (Wife) submitted to the trial court. We reverse. * * *In Floyd Weddle v. State of Indiana, a 15-page opinion, Judge Baker writes:
As the word “shall” appears in the statute regarding the trial court’s actions when the petitioner files for the dismissal of an Order of Protection, the trial court did not have discretion to deny the parties’ request to dismiss the protective order.
 In denying the parties’ request to dismiss the Order of Protection, the trial court stated it would not dismiss the Order because Husband had “gotten charged criminally with violating it[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 5.) While we understand the reason for the trial court denial of the parties’ request to dismiss, it is unfortunately not afforded such discretion. Like the trial court, we are bound by the language of the statute and make our decision on appeal based on the rules of statutory interpretation.
In this case, the appellant-defendant Floyd Weddle challenges the trial court’s admission of certain evidence after police officers conducted a protective sweep of his residence and subsequently searched the premises following the issuance of a search warrant. Weddle claims that the scope of the protective sweep violated both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because the allegedly impermissible broad protective sweep of the residence led to the police officers’ discovery of drugs and paraphernalia.ILB: This is the case where the oral argument led to this May 23rd post, headed "There’s Nothing Sinister About Home Security Cameras." Although today's opinion on p. 3 mentions the presence of "surveillance cameras on the front porch and near the garage," they are not further referenced.
We find that the scope of the protective sweep of the residence was reasonable because the officers heard additional movement in the house after taking Weddle into custody, indicating that another individual might be inside and thus presenting a risk of harm to them. The police officers did, in fact, locate other persons in the house. Therefore, the evidence that the police officers seized during the subsequent search of the residence was properly admitted at trial, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In Josiah Williams v. State of Indiana, a 10-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Josiah Williams appeals his conviction for public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor. Williams raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm.NFP civil opinions today (5):
NFP criminal opinions today (13):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 19, 2013 10:55 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions