Richard W. Osborne v. State of Indiana (3/25/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure; Constitutional Law]
Baker, Judge
Today we are asked to determine whether a police officer may encourage a person on home detention to speed through an inhabited area while under the influence of alcohol and drugs in order to effectuate a pretextual stop to allow them to detain and search the occupants of the vehicle. We find that they may not.Deborah C. Steiner v. Bank One, et al. (3/25/04 IndCtApp) [Family Law; Estates & Trusts]Appellant-defendant Richard W. Osborne brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, he challenges the reasonableness of the stop under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. * * *
Based on the totality of the circumstances, this is the precise type of police misconduct that the exclusionary rule is meant to deter. We are confident that if not for the finding that Osborne had no standing to raise a motion to suppress, the trial court would have reached the same conclusion.
Because the actions of the police could certainly be considered outrageously dangerous in these circumstances, we find that the intrusion here by the police was unreasonable. Inasmuch as reasonableness is the touchstone of the constitutional analysis, Osborne’s rights under Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 11 were violated. Thus, his motion to suppress should have been granted. Because we conclude that the search violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution, we need not address Osborne’s Fourth Amendment argument. The order of the trial court is reversed. We remand to the trial court with instructions to grant Osborne’s motion to suppress.
Madan Verma d/b/a Madan Construction Company, Inc., et al. v. D.T. Carpentry, LLC. (3/25/04 IndCtApp) [Worker's Compensation]
Posted by Marcia Oddi at March 25, 2004 02:24 PM