IN: The CI’s statement was enough against penal interest to have more credibility

The CI’s statement was enough against penal interest to have more credibility. He was not just currying favor with the police. State v. Shipman, 987 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. App. 2013).*

The officer developed enough information to have reasonable suspicion of DUI in keeping the defendant at the side of the road from his breath mints, nervousness, a pill bottle, mild odor of alcohol and denials of alcohol use. Richardson v. State, 422 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth April 18, 2013)* (dissent).

Defendant’s wife thought he was manufacturing meth, so she left the house and called the police. They came and consent to enter was given by his wife and mother. The mother was suffering from Alzheimer’s, but that doesn’t matter because she wasn’t shown to be incompetent at the time [obviously the judges have never dealt with an Alzheimer’s sufferer]. The wife’s consent was enough. Walker v. State, 986 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. App. 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.