The trial court did not improperly act as an advocate in protective order proceedings.
Return of service for an ex parte protective order was not “testimonial” so that its admission as evidence did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right.
Officer’s entry into back yard through closed fence gate, when signs said to “use front door only,” violated the Fourth Amendment; the fact that the officer was attempting to serve a protective order did not avoid the violation.
In a footnote, presumes Indiana Supreme Court “has extended application of the prison mailbox rule to the filing of motions to correct error and to regular mail.”
Criminal Rule 4(C)’s one year period did not include the time required for the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a special judge following withdrawal of a case from the trial judge pursuant to Criminal Rule 15 and Trial Rule 53.1. Affirms conviction for violating IC 14-15-4-1 on duties of a boat operator after a collision, but observes the “problematic” statute “permits no consideration of what is reasonable in any given emergency situation; nor does it permit citizens to engage in any balancing of considerations that arise in typical emergencies and are likely required by other statutes.”