Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VRWCisme
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.

29 posted on 04/08/2005 10:56:16 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Publius Valerius

Ok, that explains a lot. Usually when there will be review by a higher court, the court issuing the decision must fit it into the legal framework to avoid sending up a red flag. But if this court knows there is little chance of getting reversed, they can extend the illegality of a search to cover the presence of a camera that had nothing to do with the legality in the first place. It doesn't fit the 4th Amendment caselaw framework, but I guess for them that doesn't matter.


31 posted on 04/08/2005 10:59:17 AM PDT by VRWCisme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson