Has anyone researched this case more or heard more about it? I'm curious as to the legal grounds--the search (and a conviction resting on it) could be rendered illegal if the police didn't have probable cause or consent to search, but how would the presence of a camera affect that? I'm just wondering what this judge did to try to link this decision to some legal theory. As judges usually don't want to get reversed on appeal, it would be odd for this judge to not even attempt to couch this decision in terms of an illegal search.
I don't know about the merits of the case, but Indiana's judicial system is interesting in that the Indiana Supreme Court grants transfer about, oh, never, so the Courts of Appeals are pretty much the courts of last resort in Indiana. Obviously, the Supreme Court takes cases, but seriously, the number is very very low, even compared to other states.
This issue is pretty much a yawn, so I doubt seriously that it would go up in Indiana.
Andra Thompson v. State of IndianaThe short version is that it is not reasonable to conduct a search with a civilian TV camera, especially if the TV film is broadcast to the whole world, showing a person's private parts.
You make a very interesting point. I'd be interested in reading the opinion. Can anyone find it? Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written countless opinions where her "test" is simply that something "shocks the conscience." She is a moron and so are her tests but they stand. She typically applies them to Gender discrimination and police conduct cases, I could pull a few of her cases for you but I'd hate to have you lose your lunch. (She truly is awful.)
My guess however is that they used this standard to justify throwing out the conviction (e.g. a violation of one of the crackheads- no pun intended- constitutional rights.)
But, still, I would like to read this judge's opinion.
You've obviously never heard of the U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals!
LOL!