16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2019White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 2002). 2013Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 935 (quoting White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. 2002)). | 3 | 3 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Jackson, 420 N.E.2d at 1242 : Knecht’s argument on this point fails. 5 III. 1995Ashba, 570 N.E.2d at 940 ; Jackson, 420 N.E.2d at 1241, 1242 ; Henderson v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 507, 512 . | 2 | 3 |
Jaynes v. Stategreen2 sentences1989However, "the burden of proof in probation revocation proceedings is upon the State to prove the violation of a condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence." Ind.Code 35-7-2-2(d); Jaynes v. State (1982), Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 137, 139 . 1989However, "the burden of proof in probation revocation proceedings is upon the State to prove the violation of a condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence." Ind. Code 35-7-2-2(d); Jaynes v. State (1982), Ind. App., 437 N.E.2d 137, 139 . | 1 | 2 |
Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2019“Consensual encounters in which a citizen voluntarily interacts with an officer do not compel Fourth Amendment analysis.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 261 (Ind. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Francis v. State, 764 N.E.2d 641, 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 4 without a warrant requires the State to prove an exception to the warrant requirement applicable at the time of the search. 2013Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Id. [21] A search falls within the automobile exception when a vehicle is readily mobile and there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. 2015Id. [12] Killebrew acknowledges that Officer Carson saw the handgun between the driver’s seat and the console without conducting a search, but argues that the guns in the glove box and the heroin were not discovered until Officer Trotter leaned into the truck and conducted his search. | 5 | 2013–2016 |
Holder v. State
green
2 sentences2019“A search without a warrant requires the State to prove an exception to the warrant requirement applicable at the time of the search.” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 935 . [10] Not all encounters between police and individuals implicate Fourth Amendment protections. 2007“A search without a warrant requires the State to prove an exception to the warrant requirement applicable at the time of the search.” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 936 . | 3 | 2007–2019 |
Henderson v. State
green
1 sentence1995Ashba, 570 N.E.2d at 940 ; Jackson, 420 N.E.2d at 1241, 1242 ; Henderson v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 507, 512 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ashba v. State
green
1 sentence1995Ashba, 570 N.E.2d at 940 ; Jackson, 420 N.E.2d at 1241, 1242 ; Henderson v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 507, 512 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.