After oral argument, the Supreme Court has granted the State's petition to transfer in Holder, a case I mentioned in this post, because it was published the same day as Litchfield, the Supreme Court's most recent trash case, and interesting in light of Litchfield. (Holder was originally NFP, and Holder moved to have the decision published, which the Court of Appeals did over the State's opposition. If the publication status of an opinion is one of the principal considerations in transfer decisions, it escapes me why Holder, who won in the Court of Appeals, would have asked for publication. I think I'd have wanted to fly as low and slow as possible. But maybe there were good reasons.)
The oral argument in the Supreme Court on April 28th may be viewed via this link (Real Player). As Justice Sullivan noted during the argument, the Court of Appeals merely decided the search issue under Article 1, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution. If the Supreme Court is now going to affirm the denial of suppression, it is also going to have to address the fourth amendment issues.
The argument is quite interesting and worth a listen. I think we are going to get more, after Litchfield, about searches under the Indiana Constitution and private property.
Not Blakely, but interesting.