Police placement of a GPS device in a package opened by UPS did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but police use of a “parcel wire” to monitor the opening of the package once defendant had taken it into his home was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment; police could not enter the home without a warrant under the “exigent circumstances” exception because the exigent circumstances – the wire’s alert that the package was opening – were the result of their Fourth Amendment violation.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

The proper legal inquiry whether there was a statutory prohibition against the town’s exercise of authority was based on Indiana’s Home Rule Act.

Read Case Clip

Reverses child exploitation convictions in part because “[t]he State presented no evidence the victims exhibited their genitals [footnote omitted] or intended to satisfy anyone’s sexual desire.”

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Statements of murder victim were properly admitted under Evidence Rule 804(b)(5), the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” hearsay exception.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Defendant did not commit misconduct under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) when it did not supplement prior deposition testimony of a nonparty.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion