probable cause requirement in Indiana

2018Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 536 (Ind. 1996), cert. denied).

1999The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement is determined on a case-by-case basis, see Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 536 , and the facts and circumstances need not relate to the same crime with which the suspect is ultimately charged.

2024“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the facts and circumstances need not relate to the same crime with which the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1298 | March 12, 2024 Page 11 of 27 suspect is ultimately charged.” Ortiz v. State, 716 N.E.2d 345, 348 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted). [15] Ind. Code § 9-24-18-1 , which was cited in the State’s brief in opposition to the motion to suppress and the trial court’s September 28, 2022 order, is titled “Driving without a license” and provided at the time of the t

2024“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (citing Ortiz v. State, 716 N.E.2d 345, 348 (Ind. 1999)).

2002DiTommaso v. State, 566 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind.1991).

2002Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 536 (Ind.1996) (citing DiTommaso v. State, 566 N.E.2d 538, 540 (Ind.1991)).

2017“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest incident to a lawful arrest, is determined on a case-by-case basis, and is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Ross v. State, 844 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). [27] Here, Neville does not deny that his act of driving without a license gave Detective Ball probable cause to arrest him for that offense.

2008See, e.g., Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 720 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement ... is determined on a case-by-case basis, and is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (quoting Ross v. State, 844 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)), trans. denied.

2025“The probable-cause standard is also ‘a fluid concept.’” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370-371 , 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 232 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 )).

2025“The probable-cause standard is also ‘a fluid concept.’” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370-371 , 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 232 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 )).

2015Based on the officer’s testimony at a probable cause hearing, a magistrate issued a warrant authorizing a search of the described house for “[m]ari-juana, ‘grow’ lights, and records and other similar written material recording or otherwise reflecting illegal trafficking in marijuana.” 687 N.E.2d at 181 .

2015The officer *916 executed the search warrant at Jaggers’ house. [17] Our Supreme Court determined the totality of the circumstances did not corroborate the hearsay: “The informant’s claim that Jaggers' was cultivating and trafficking marijuana in his house was entirely uncorroborated. • The facts that were verified were unremarkable; anyone who knew the location of [Jaggers’] house and the two marijuana patches could have placed the anonymous phone call.” Id. at 184 . [18] And see Bradley v. State, 609 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind.1993), where there was insufficient information to establish that the t

2019Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

2018“The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). [7] Walker claims that in order to have probable cause to arrest him, Officers Pflum and Carroll had to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the synthetic marijuana found on the ground near his moped.

2016See Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 537 (Ind.1995). [12] The State relies on two exceptions to the probable cause requirement, one identified in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), which relates to a brief stop and frisk for weapons, and another identified in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 , 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981), which relates to the execution of a search warrant.

2003As we observed in Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 539 (Ind.1995), probable cause requires only that the information available to the officer would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe the items could be useful as evidence of a crime. *1137 Based on the descriptions of the suspects and the identification discovered in the car, probable cause existed to issue a search warrant for the Governours Court address.

2016To the extent that Ali suggests that her eventual acquittal conclusively establishes that no probable cause existed to charge her with theft in the first place, we emphasize that “the amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement ... is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wells v. Bernitt, 936 N.E.2d 1242, 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), tmns. denied (2011). [29] In short, the prosecutor, not Ap-pellees, initiated the action based on IMPD’s investigation, and Ali failed to designate evidence to rebut the prima facie judicial deter

2015See Wells v. Bernitt, 936 N.E.2d 1242, 1253 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (”[T]he amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement ... is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”), trans. denied (2011). .

2013See Appellee’s Br. at 9-10 n.5. 7 (Emphases added.) See also LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251, 1257-58 (Ind. 2000) (nothing that the Ethics Commission determines whether a complaint should proceed to a public hearing “using a probable cause standard”).

2013(Emphases added.) See also LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251, 1257-58 (Ind.2000) (nothing that the Ethics Commission determines whether a complaint should proceed to a public hearing “using a probable cause standard”).

2012Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719, 723 (Ind. 2010); see also Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 720 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (stating “[t]he amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement . . . is determined on a case-by-case basis, and is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”), trans. denied (citation omitted).

2008See, e.g., Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 720 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement ... is determined on a case-by-case basis, and is less than the level of proof necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (quoting Ross v. State, 844 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)), trans. denied.

2017The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause test is largely determined on a case-by-case basis.” Pawloski, 269 Ind. at 355 , 380 N.E.2d at 1233 . [21] We initially note that Webster and Muse fall into the category of cooperative citizens, who in the spirit of good citizenship, desired to assist law enforcement officials in solving Miller’s murder.

2017The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause test is largely determined on a case-by-case basis.” Pawloski, 269 Ind. at 355 , 380 N.E.2d at 1233 . [21] We initially note that Webster and Muse fall into the category of cooperative citizens, who in the spirit of good citizenship, desired to assist law enforcement officials in solving Miller’s murder.

2025“The probable-cause standard is also ‘a fluid concept.’” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370-371 , 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 232 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 )).

2025“The probable-cause standard is also ‘a fluid concept.’” Id. (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370-371 , 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 232 , 103 S. Ct. 2317 )).

2015Id. at 265 . “[Bjeeause the situations that officers face ‘in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous,’ probable cause allows for reasonable mistakes by the officer.” United States v. Moore, 215 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir.2000) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 112 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)).

2015Id. at 265 . “[Bjeeause the situations that officers face ‘in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous,’ probable cause allows for reasonable mistakes by the officer.” United States v. Moore, 215 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir.2000) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 112 , 95 S.Ct. 854 , 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)).

2008See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 , 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421-1422 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997) (holding that the reasonable suspicion standard "as opposed to a probable-cause requirement— strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries”). 11 .

2008See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 , 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421-1422 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997) (holding that the reasonable suspicion standard "as opposed to a probable-cause requirement— strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries”). 11 .

2024“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (citing Ortiz v. State, 716 N.E.2d 345, 348 (Ind. 1999)).

2020I.C. § 35-33-5- 2(a)(1)–(2); see also Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 59 (1967) (observing that the purpose of the probable cause requirement is “to keep the state out of Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-528 | February 20, 2020 Page 5 of 13 constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed”).

2018Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 536 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1078 , 118 S.Ct. 858 (1998)).

2017Sears, 668 N.E.2d at 667 (citing Green v. State, 461 N.E.2d 108, 112 (Ind. 1984).) The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2011See In re Commitment of Tedesco, 421 N.E.2d 726, 730 (Ind.Ct.App. 1981) (holding that committee's fourteen-day prehearing detention without a probable cause hearing violated due process, but reversal was not warranted because there was no evidence that the regular commitment hearing was tainted by the prehearing detention).

2011See In re Commitment of Tedesco, 421 N.E.2d 726, 730 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (holding that committee’s fourteen-day prehearing detention without a probable cause hearing violated due process, but reversal was not warranted because there was no evidence that the regular commitment hearing was tainted by the prehear-ing detention).

2016“The amount of evidence necessary to meet the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is determined on a case-by-case basis.” Griffith v. State, 788 N.E.2d 835, 840 (Ind.2003). [20] The United States Supreme Court has “distinguished between the search of a vehicle and a personal search ‘because of the unique, significantly heightened protection afforded against searches of one’s person.’ ” United States v. Moore, 390 Fed.Appx. 503, 507 (6th Cir.2010) (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 301 , 119 S.Ct. 1297 , 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999)).

2014Griffith, 788 N.E.2d at 840 .

2009Examining first the probable cause requirement, we have observed that the " '[flacts necessary to demonstrate the existence of probable cause for a warrantless search are not materially different from those which would authorize the issuance of a warrant if presented to a magistrate'" Masterson v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Gibson v. State, 733 N.E.2d 945, 952 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)), trans. denied. " 'Probable cause to issue a search warrant exists where the facts and cireumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to conclude that a search of those premises will

2009Examining first the probable cause requirement, we have observed that the " '[flacts necessary to demonstrate the existence of probable cause for a warrantless search are not materially different from those which would authorize the issuance of a warrant if presented to a magistrate'" Masterson v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (quoting Gibson v. State, 733 N.E.2d 945, 952 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)), trans. denied. " 'Probable cause to issue a search warrant exists where the facts and cireumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to conclude that a search of those premises will