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.
18 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Anthony J. Dichiarintegreen2 sentences2001Covelli v. State, 579 N.E.2d 466, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied (citing United States v. Dichiannte, 445 F.2d 126, 129-30 (7th Cir.1971)). 1999Covelli v. State, 579 N.E.2d 466, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (citing United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 F.2d 126, 129-30 (7th Cir.1971)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Covelli v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Covelli v. State, 579 N.E.2d 466, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied (citing United States v. Dichiannte, 445 F.2d 126, 129-30 (7th Cir.1971)). 1999Covelli v. State, 579 N.E.2d 466, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (citing United States v. Dichiarinte, 445 F.2d 126, 129-30 (7th Cir.1971)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Myers v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2005). 2008Masterson v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied; see Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind.2005). | 1 | 2 |
Pinkney v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Pink-mey v. State, 742 N.E.2d 956, 960 (Ind.Ct. 2003Pinkney, 742 N.E.2d at 959 . | 1 | 2 |
Patrick Austin v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020See also Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10, 17 (Ind. 2010)) (“‘[W]e focus on the actions of 4Because we find that the officers searched Hardin’s vehicle pursuant to the warrant, we do not address Hardin’s alternate argument concerning the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. the police officer,’ and employ a totality-of-the-circumstances test to evaluate the reasonableness of the officer’s actions.”). | 1 | 1 |
Duran v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See also Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10, 17 (Ind. 2010)) (“‘[W]e focus on the actions of 4Because we find that the officers searched Hardin’s vehicle pursuant to the warrant, we do not address Hardin’s alternate argument concerning the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. the police officer,’ and employ a totality-of-the-circumstances test to evaluate the reasonableness of the officer’s actions.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kramergreen2 sentences2016Observing that numerous other state courts have adopted the community caretaking function as an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in various situations beyond inventory searches of vehicles, those panels each adopted, as do we, a three-pronged analysis for evaluating claims of police community caretaking functions as set out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Kramer, 315 Wis.2d 414 , 759 N.W.2d 598, 605 (2009). 2016Observing that numerous other state courts have adopted the community caretaking function as an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in various situations beyond inventory searches of vehicles, those panels each adopted, as do we, a three-pronged analysis for evaluating claims of police community caretaking functions as set out by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Kramer, 315 Wis.2d 414 , 759 N.W.2d 598, 605 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen2 sentences2016See *435 Cady, 413 U.S. at 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 . 2016See *435 Cady, 413 U.S. at 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 . | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Stategreen1 sentence2014In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that “a school official’s search of a student is not subject to the fourth amendment warrant requirement and does not require the same degree of suspicion that constitutes probable cause.” Berry v. State, 561 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340-41 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985)). “ ‘Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.’ ” Id. (quoting T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341 , 105 S.Ct. 733 ). | 1 | 1 |
Masterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Masterson v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1001, 1004 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied; see Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitzgreen2 sentences2000See Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 , 110 S.Ct. 2481 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990) (“Sitz I ”). 2000See Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 , 110 S.Ct. 2481 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990) (“Sitz I ”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buckley v. State
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2004Id. | 2 | 2004–2020 |
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2025The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to decide ‘[w]hether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.’” Id. at 846 , 139 S. Ct. at 2532 (quoting Petition for Certiorari at ii). [26] In the opening paragraphs, the Court indicated that it considered “what police officers may do in a narrow but important category of cases: those in which the driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test.” Id. at 843 , 139 S. Ct. at 2531 . 2025The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to decide ‘[w]hether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.’” Id. at 846 , 139 S. Ct. at 2532 (quoting Petition for Certiorari at ii). [26] In the opening paragraphs, the Court indicated that it considered “what police officers may do in a narrow but important category of cases: those in which the driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test.” Id. at 843 , 139 S. Ct. at 2531 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Knights
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 117 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Justice v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. [21] One exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police to dispense with obtaining a warrant if there are exigent circumstances— specifically where “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 936 -37 (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 38 , 394 (1978)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Holder v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. [21] One exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police to dispense with obtaining a warrant if there are exigent circumstances— specifically where “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 936 -37 (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 38 , 394 (1978)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
New Jersey v. T. L. O.
green
2 sentences2014In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that “a school official’s search of a student is not subject to the fourth amendment warrant requirement and does not require the same degree of suspicion that constitutes probable cause.” Berry v. State, 561 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340-41 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985)). “ ‘Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.’ ” Id. (quoting T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341 , 105 S.Ct. 733 ). 2014In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that “a school official’s search of a student is not subject to the fourth amendment warrant requirement and does not require the same degree of suspicion that constitutes probable cause.” Berry v. State, 561 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340-41 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985)). “ ‘Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.’ ” Id. (quoting T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341 , 105 S.Ct. 733 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Middleton v. State
green
1 sentence2009Our Supreme Court made a similar holding barring warrantless re-entry of a residence by police in Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind.1999). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2009This holding falls in line with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mincey v. Arizona that held that there is no murder seene exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-894 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). 2009This holding falls in line with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mincey v. Arizona that held that there is no murder seene exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-894 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences1981Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 . 1981Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.