State v. Pease
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERTSON, Judge.
The State of Indiana appeals the granting of defendant Ted Pease’s motion to suppress. We affirm.
I
Before addressing the substantive issues involved in this appeal, we believe it necessary to consider the propriety of the State’s appeal. Both parties have argued the question of appellate jurisdiction, believing the issue to have been raised by the State’s decision to dismiss the action before appealing, rather than to seek an interlocutory appeal. Pease argues, in essence, that because the State allegedly lacks the authority to appeal, we have no jurisdiction.
Our courts have…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Sibron v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. Brignoni-PonceSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Hilton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2007
- Wilson v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
- Berry v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
- Swanson v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2000
- State v. MunozNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.