Boultinghouse v. State

Pyle, Judge concurring in result with opinion.

[24] I concur in the result reached by my colleagues, but I write separately to state that it is unnecessary to address any of Boultinghouse's constitutional claims. See Hulse v. Indiana State Fair Board , 94 N.E.3d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (noting that appellate courts do not address constitutional claims if resolution can be reached on non-constitutional grounds). In addition, my colleagues hold, making an assumption that Boultinghouses's relationship has a constitutional dimension, that Indiana's invasion of privacy statute does not affect any…