Indiana Courts Strengthen 4th Amendment Against Lying Police Officers

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the 4th Amendment against Officers that lie in order to get into a person's home.  In the case of Harper v. State Police Officers lied in order to gain entry into a person's home.  Once inside the officers arrested this same person and when the officers requested she remove her wedding ring, the individual shook her shoulders forward and pulled away from the police officers.  The State of Indiana then charged this individual with Resisting Law Enforcement.  

The Court ruled that when officers want to enter into a home, even to arrest a person, the police need a warrant.  While there can be exceptions to this rule, the State must prove the exception exists.  And the Court reaffirmed that an exigent circumstance does not exist simply because a person is inside the home that an officer wants to arrest.  Most importantly, the Court ruled that since the Officers were not engaged in the execution of their lawful duties the person arrested could not be guilty of resisting law enforcement.  

The police are allowed to lie to people during the course of an investigation. The police are allowed to make promises they do not intend to keep to people during the course of an investigation.  The solution?  Do not talk to the police.  Do not invite them into your home. If the police show up at your home, demand to see a warrant.  If you or a loved one have been arrested, contact Attorney Marc Lopez by email or at 317 632 3642.  

Indiana Court Puts Brakes on "Pat Down Searches."

In the State of Indiana, Pat Down searches are a tool used by the police to pat down a person for possible weapons, so that a police officer can conduct an investigation without fear of being harmed.  This pat down can only occur if an officer has knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the officer is in danger.  While a Pat Down search, which is just a pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect, can help keep officers safe, it is frequently used as justification for trying to find other items, such as controlled substances.  "I wasn't trying to find marijuana on the defendant your honor, I was simply conducting a Pat Down search for officer safety."

In a case decided in late February 2014, Cunningham v. State the Indiana Court of Appeals an Officer pulled over a driver for having a missing tail lamp.  When the driver was surprised the tail lamp was missing, he requested that he be able to see the missing tail lamp for himself.  The Officer said that the driver could go see for himself, but that the Officer would Pat Down search the driver if the driver got out of the car.  The driver agreed and was searched by a Pat Down.  The driver was in possession of marijuana.  

The Court of Appeals, by a split decision, reversed this trial court and said that the Pat Down search was illegal.  The Court noted the complete lack of any reason why the Officer felt he was in danger.  And the Court held that the "consent' given by the driver to the Officer for the Pat Down search was was not true consent but merely submission to the police authority - which is actually the absence of freely and voluntarily consent.   

The Court in Cunningham have struck a huge victory for the everyday person to be free from searches by Police.  Indiana Search and Seizure law is complicated.  If you have an issue with search and seizure, please be sure to contact a knowledgeable trial attorney.   If you or someone you care about has been charged with a crime please contact Attorney Lopez at (317) 632-3642 or through email.

Out of Court Statements &Witnesses: Making Indiana do its Job at Trial

On February 24, 2014 the Indiana Court of Appeals took a stand against the Government's repeated attempts to use police "course of investigation" testimony at trial.   Traditionally, at trial police would testify to what they personally observed and then testify, "Mr. Smith told me he saw the Defendant walking away from the crime scene." Good Trial Attorneys would say, "Objection. That statement is hearsay - it is an out of court statement made by a person who is not on the stand. And that statement should not be admitted." The Government lawyers would respond, "It is not for the truth of the matter asserted, it is simply to show the jury why the officer went and investigated the Defendant. It is merely 'course of investigation' testimony."

Despite this type of testimony clearly being hearsay and clearly being harmful to a client's right to confront and cross examine all witnesses against him, Judges routinely let this type of testimony come into trial. That was until September 12, 2012 when a case named Kindred v. State of Indiana was published.  The Court of Appeals in Kindred put a stop to this type of testimony.  And rightfully so.  If the Government wants to put a man on trial and put him in jail, make the witnesses against him come to court and testify, and let the Defendant cross examine these witnesses - which is exactly what is guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights and the Indiana Constitution.  Don't allow testimony to come in from other witnesses through the police.

Despite Kindred being good law, this type of testimony is still going on in a bit more secretive fashion.  That is the issue in the February 24, 2014 case of Blount v. State of Indiana.  In Blount the police officer testified that witnesses, who did not appear at trial, gave the nickname of the Defendant to the Police officer and then subsequently came into contact and arrested Defendant.  The judge would not let the officer state exactly what the witnesses told him, but did let the officer testify that that the witnesses gave him a nickname and then the officer went and apprehended the Defendant.  So while the judge prevented the Officer from testify as to what these witnesses told him exactly, it was obvious that what the witnesses told the officer led the Officer to the Defendant.

The Court in Blount reversed this conviction.  The Court held that this was hearsay, it was wrongly admitted by the trial judge and the testimony, even if it was not for the truth of the matter asserted was highly prejudicial to the Defendant.  This case reaffirmed the right for a defendant to confront and cross examine a witness against them.  And that this right cannot be short circuited by the Government saying, "It is not testimonial, it is merely course of investigation testimony."

Remember, fight for your rights.  If you don't, no one else will. If you have been charged with a crime in the State of Indiana please do your best to hire a tried and true trial lawyer.  Not someone who is a "dump truck lawyer" - a lawyer that will dump you with a quick guilty plea.  If you or someone you care about has been charged with a crime please contact Attorney Lopez at (317) 632-3642 or through email.