11 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Whitneygreen2 sentences2020Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (Ind. 2012). [22] Pedigo relies on State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) for his contention that where a portable breath test result is negative and there is no probable cause for intoxication, police may not seek a blood sample. 2016Therefore, according to the plain language of the statute, when there is an accident resulting in serious bodily injury or death, the officer can choose what test to offer the driver first: (1) a portable breath test, the results of which are generally inadmissible at trial, State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823, 828 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), or (2) á chemical test, the results of which are admissible at trial if certain requirements are met, see Bisard, 973 N.E.2d at 1233 . | 1 | 2 |
Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co.green1 sentence2020See State v. Hardy, 7 N.E.3d 396, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating that dicta refers to statements that a court makes that are not necessary in the determination of the issues presented, are not binding, and do not become law, although it may be considered persuasive) (citing Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co., 551 N.E.2d 437, 443 (Ind. 1990)). [23] Both parties also cite to Mannix v State, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) in their arguments, but such reliance is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
Morgan Mannix v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020See State v. Hardy, 7 N.E.3d 396, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating that dicta refers to statements that a court makes that are not necessary in the determination of the issues presented, are not binding, and do not become law, although it may be considered persuasive) (citing Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co., 551 N.E.2d 437, 443 (Ind. 1990)). [23] Both parties also cite to Mannix v State, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) in their arguments, but such reliance is misplaced. 2020Mannix, 54 N.E.3d at 1005 . | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 798 (Ind. 2012). [22] Pedigo relies on State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) for his contention that where a portable breath test result is negative and there is no probable cause for intoxication, police may not seek a blood sample. | 1 | 1 |
State of Indiana v. David Lott Hardygreen1 sentence2020See State v. Hardy, 7 N.E.3d 396, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating that dicta refers to statements that a court makes that are not necessary in the determination of the issues presented, are not binding, and do not become law, although it may be considered persuasive) (citing Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co., 551 N.E.2d 437, 443 (Ind. 1990)). [23] Both parties also cite to Mannix v State, 54 N.E.3d 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) in their arguments, but such reliance is misplaced. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hannoy v. State
green
2 sentences2026And, while she first offered Blackburn a portable breath test that returned negative results for alcohol intoxication, there is also no question that Blackburn then twice consented to a chemical test by way of the blood draw. [16] Nonetheless, relying on a panel opinion from our Court in Hannoy v. State, Blackburn contends that Deputy Milholland needed probable cause that he was under the influence of a controlled substance before she could offer him a chemical test. 789 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App.), aff’d on reh’g, 793 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. 2003However, "[nlothing in Indiana Code § 9-80-7 authorizes an officer to forcibly take a blood sample if actual consent to a chemical test is not obtained." Hannoy, 789 N.E.2d at 983 . | 2 | 2003–2026 |
State of Indiana v. David Bisard
green
2 sentences2025However, all chemical tests must be administered within three (3) hours after the fatal accident or the accident involving serious bodily injury. (c) It is not necessary for a law enforcement officer to offer a portable breath test or chemical test to an unconscious person. 7 Ind. Code § 9-30-7-1 (b) provides: “As used in this chapter, ‘fatal accident’ means an accident, a collision, or other occurrence that involves at least one (1) vehicle and that results in: (1) death; or (2) bodily injury that gives a law enforcement officer reason to believe that the death of at least one (1) person is i 2016Therefore, according to the plain language of the statute, when there is an accident resulting in serious bodily injury or death, the officer can choose what test to offer the driver first: (1) a portable breath test, the results of which are generally inadmissible at trial, State v. Whitney, 889 N.E.2d 823, 828 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), or (2) á chemical test, the results of which are admissible at trial if certain requirements are met, see Bisard, 973 N.E.2d at 1233 . | 2 | 2016–2025 |
Flanagan v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. [15] Before driving Flanagan to the police station, the deputy took Flanagan to his vehicle so he could retrieve some of his personal belongings. 2018Id. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Will Thomas v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2026Id. [14] Indiana Code section 9-30-7-3(a) requires a law enforcement officer to “offer a portable breath test or chemical test to any person who the officer has reason to believe operated a vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident or an accident 2 Blackburn lodged no objection to any portion of Holderman’s testimony, and Blackburn specifically did not challenge Holderman’s competence to testify regarding the child’s viability. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hannoy v. State
green
1 sentence2026And, while she first offered Blackburn a portable breath test that returned negative results for alcohol intoxication, there is also no question that Blackburn then twice consented to a chemical test by way of the blood draw. [16] Nonetheless, relying on a panel opinion from our Court in Hannoy v. State, Blackburn contends that Deputy Milholland needed probable cause that he was under the influence of a controlled substance before she could offer him a chemical test. 789 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. Ct. App.), aff’d on reh’g, 793 N.E.2d 1109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Eduardo Cruz-Salazar v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2020The defendant was arrested for public intoxication after Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2553 | May 29, 2020 Page 7 of 17 registering 0.184 on a portable breath test and during a search incident to the arrest, the defendant was found in possession of cocaine. [13] In concluding that the police officer’s warrantless entry into the vehicle was permissible under both the United States and Indiana Constitutions, our Supreme Court held that “the report of a stationary vehicle that had been running for thirty minutes, in the early hours of a cold December morning,” was suffi | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2013Therefore, Gilbert’s seizure and removal from the scene did not violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment. 2 Second, the trial court believed that cases such as Johnson, supra, were inapplicable because they dealt with probable cause justifying searches, not seizures. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Schlesinger v. State
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 968 . j - In this case, Deputy Tyler did not properly attain Wiggins' consent to a portable breath test or chemical test under Indiana's Implied Consent Law and did not even seek Wiggins' consent before ordering the urine test. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.