7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Minnesota v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2023The United States Supreme Court recognized a plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 , 124 L. 2023The United States Supreme Court recognized a plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2137 , 124 L. | 2 | 5 |
DD v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See D.D. v. State , 668 N.E.2d 1250 , 1253-54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (the plain feel doctrine was not satisfied by an officer's general *1201 declaration that a bulge "felt like contraband" or his initial feel that made him believe the item was "probably cocaine or marijuana"). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Wright v. State , 766 N.E.2d 1223 , 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that the officer's seizure of rock cocaine was justified under the plain feel doctrine). [16] Because the removal of the item from Durstock's pocket was permissible, the officers properly arrested Durstock for possession of a syringe. 2018See, e.g., Wright v. State , 766 N.E.2d 1223 , 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that the officer's seizure of rock cocaine was justified under the plain feel doctrine). [16] Because the removal of the item from Durstock's pocket was permissible, the officers properly arrested Durstock for possession of a syringe. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2012See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (analogizing the plain-feel doctrine to the plain-view doctrine as limited by Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which held that the moving of stereo equipment to check serial numbers was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment absent probable cause to suspect the equipment was stolen when “the incriminating character of the stereo equipment was not immediately apparent”). 2012See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 , 113 S.Ct. 2130 (analogizing the plain-feel doctrine to the plain-view doctrine as limited by Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 , 107 S.Ct. 1149 , 94 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987), which held that the moving of stereo equipment to check serial numbers was an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment absent probable cause to suspect the equipment was stolen when “the incriminating character of the stereo equipment was not immediately apparent”). | 1 | 1 |
Fentress v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 ; Fentress v. State, 863 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [4] Although the State does not argue that the evidence is admissible pursuant to this exception, "[w]e will affirm the denial [of a motion to suppress] if it is sustainable on any legal grounds apparent in the record." Jones v. State, 866 N.E.2d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied; cf. Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind. 1998) ("Although the trial court's reason for admitting the confession was erroneous, we will affirm the | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 ; Fentress v. State, 863 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [4] Although the State does not argue that the evidence is admissible pursuant to this exception, "[w]e will affirm the denial [of a motion to suppress] if it is sustainable on any legal grounds apparent in the record." Jones v. State, 866 N.E.2d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied; cf. Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind. 1998) ("Although the trial court's reason for admitting the confession was erroneous, we will affirm the | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 ; Fentress v. State, 863 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [4] Although the State does not argue that the evidence is admissible pursuant to this exception, "[w]e will affirm the denial [of a motion to suppress] if it is sustainable on any legal grounds apparent in the record." Jones v. State, 866 N.E.2d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied; cf. Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind. 1998) ("Although the trial court's reason for admitting the confession was erroneous, we will affirm the | 1 | 1 |
Barfield v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 379 ; Fentress v. State, 863 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [4] Although the State does not argue that the evidence is admissible pursuant to this exception, "[w]e will affirm the denial [of a motion to suppress] if it is sustainable on any legal grounds apparent in the record." Jones v. State, 866 N.E.2d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied; cf. Alford v. State, 699 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind. 1998) ("Although the trial court's reason for admitting the confession was erroneous, we will affirm the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Blake
green
2 sentences1995In People v. Blake (1995), 268 Ill.App.3d 737 , 206 Ill.Dec. 575 , 645 N.E.2d 580 , the Illinois Appellate Court held that because the so-called “patdown” search went beyond that which was necessary to determine whether the suspect had a weapon and because the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the suspect, the evidence should have been suppressed. 1995In People v. Blake (1995), 268 Ill.App.3d 737 , 206 Ill.Dec. 575 , 645 N.E.2d 580 , the Illinois Appellate Court held that because the so-called “patdown” search went beyond that which was necessary to determine whether the suspect had a weapon and because the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the suspect, the evidence should have been suppressed. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Parker v. State
green
1 sentence2019Vol. I, pg. 112.) He further testified that the waistband area was "commonly used" to "carry weapons and contraband." Id. at 113 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.