officer claim in Indiana

2019Id. [34] In the current case, Officer Kreutzberger’s investigation of the accident largely consisted of discussions with Hendricks and Horne.

1985Although the decisions quoted extensively indicate, without addressing the burden of proof issue, that the good faith of the officer is a defense, the Seventh Circuit, in the later case of Whitley v. Seibel, (7th Cir.1980) 613 F.2d 682 , after quoting the above language, said.: "We must next consider whether the defendant's conduct is actionable under the applicable Section 1988 standard.

1985Although the decisions quoted extensively indicate, without addressing the burden of proof issue, that the good faith of the officer is a defense, the Seventh Circuit, in the later case of Whitley v. Seibel, (7th Cir.1980) 613 F.2d 682 , after quoting the above language, said: "We must next consider whether the defendant's conduct is actionable under the applicable Section 1983 standard.

1926The Supreme Court of Vermont intimated an opinion that an officer who had searched a house, seized certain goods alleged to have been stolen, and arrested the occupant on a warrant charging him with larceny, might have authority to re-enter under the search warrant to complete his search for the missing goods, blit said that “the officer did not claim to so enter.” Lawton v. Cardell (1850), 22 Vt. 524, 528 .

1901Lane v. Board, etc., 7 Ind. App. 625 ; State, ex rel., v. Harris, 89 Ind. 363 , 46 Am.

1901Lane v. Board, etc., 7 Ind. App. 625 ; State, ex rel., v. Harris, 89 Ind. 363 , 46 Am.

1883In speaking of the jurisdiction of courts in granting this writ, Mr. Hurd, in his work on Habeas Corpus, says on page 326: “Where the return shows a detainer under legal process, the only proper points for examination are the existence, validity and present legal force of the process; ex’cept where, in commitments for criminal or supposed criminal matters, the court or officer hearing the habeas corpus is invested with a revisory or corrective jurisdiction over the court or officer commanding the imprisonment, and with jurisdiction also over the offence or subject-matter of the commitment, in

1877In the case of Bleven v. Freer, 10 Cal. 172 , it was held, that the owner of property attached or levied upon as the property of another was not conclusively estopped from showing title in himself because he has given an accountable receipt for its delivery to the officer, although the receipt admits that the property is attached or levied upon as the property of the debtor, if he makes known to the officer his claim, at or before the time the receipt is given.