Published by the Indiana Judicial Center
To determine if there is probable cause based on a drug dog alert, this decision establishes the Fourth Amendment analysis for when “a sniff is up to snuff.”
The Padilla v. Kentucky Sixth Amendment holding, requiring defense counsel to advise of risk of deportation entailed in a guilty plea, does not have retroactive application to convictions which became final prior to Padilla’s decision date (which was March 31, 2010).
Plurality opinion on whether Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an analyst’s forensic report through an expert witness; plurality holds in this case Clause did not preclude an expert’s testimony that defendant’s DNA profile matched a vaginal swab semen DNA profile produced by a Cellmark analyst who did not testify.
Jane Seigel, Executive Director
Michael J. McMahon, Director of Research
Amanda Wishin, Staff Attorney
30 South Meridian Street, Suite 900
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Case Clips are selected decisions of the Indiana appellate courts abstracted for judges by the Indiana Judicial Center. The full text of Indiana opinions may be retrieved from the Indiana Judicial System website at courts.IN.gov/opinions.
The Judicial Center is the staff agency for the Judicial Conference of Indiana and serves Indiana judges and court personnel by providing educational programs, publications, and research assistance.
All content © 2013 Indiana Judicial Center courts.IN.gov