Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Phillip Griffin v. State of Indiana, 2-1, 3-opinion ruling, Sr. Judge Shepard writes for the majority:
Citizens are obliged to obey a police officer’s order to stop when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. When there is no indication of possible criminal activity, does a citizen who walks away commit the crime of resisting arrest by departing? We think it cannot be so, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and reverse appellant Phillip Griffin’s conviction for resisting law enforcement.NFP civil opinions today (1):
On the other hand, whether Griffin’s conviction for battering an officer while being placed under arrest stands on different grounds. We affirm it. * * *
Griffin says the trial court lacked authority to order him to perform community service in lieu of fines and costs. * * *
In resolving Griffin’s claim, we follow this Court’s recent decision in Vaughn v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1071, 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The Vaughn panel declared that in the absence of statutory authority, a court may not impose community service in lieu of costs and fees. * * *
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the battery conviction, reverse the resisting conviction and the order of community service, remanding for further proceedings on the issue of costs.
MATHIAS, J., concurs with separate opinion.
BAILEY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.
[Mathis, concurring, writes in part, beginning on p. 11] I agree that Officer Miller lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Griffin for the purpose of investigating a possible crime, and therefore, Griffin was free to disregard Officer Miller’s order to stop. Accordingly, I concur fully in the majority’s conclusion that Griffin’s conviction for resisting law enforcement must be reversed. However, I write separately to address concerns about Officer Miller’s conduct in this case, particularly given his suspicion that Griffin suffered from a mental illness at the time in question.
[Bailey, concurring in part and dissenting in part, begins on p. 14] I concur in the affirmation of Griffin’s conviction for battery. However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of his conviction for resisting law enforcement. * * *
I would follow the settled law as discussed in Cole. For this reason, I dissent from the reversal of Griffin’s conviction for resisting law enforcement.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 23, 2013 11:02 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions