Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Campos v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Based on its determination that “federal precedent addressing standing of a passenger asserting an interest in a searched vehicle is equally applicable under the Indiana Constitution[,]” 1 the court agreed with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that “[w]here the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission of the owner to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.” Id. at 598 , 599 (quoting United States v. Rubio-Rivera, 917 F.2d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 1990)). 2013Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590, 598-99 (Ind. 2008) (emphasis added) (citations and parentheticals omitted). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Ramon Rubio-Riveragreen2 sentences2020Based on its determination that “federal precedent addressing standing of a passenger asserting an interest in a searched vehicle is equally applicable under the Indiana Constitution[,]” 1 the court agreed with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that “[w]here the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission of the owner to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.” Id. at 598 , 599 (quoting United States v. Rubio-Rivera, 917 F.2d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 1990)). 2012Thus, “‘[w]here the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission of the owner to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.’” Id. (quoting Rubio-Rivera, 917 F.2d at 1275 ). | 1 | 3 |
Hester v. Stategreen1 sentence2008In Hester v. State, the Court of Appeals relied on a presumption that a driver has standing unless there is evidence to the contrary. 551 N.E.2d 1187, 1189 (Ind.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Paul Richard Portillo, United States of America v. Daniel C. Montellano
green
1 sentence2012Thus, “‘[w]here the defendant offers sufficient evidence indicating that he has permission of the owner to use the vehicle, the defendant plainly has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.’” Id. (quoting Rubio-Rivera, 917 F.2d at 1275 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.