• members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest (Ind. 2023) — Recognizes Section 1 as judicially enforceable "Lockean Natural Rights Guarantee"; protects fundamental rights like self-protection, bodily autonomy, and personal liberty (e.g., life-saving abortion exception); rooted in history/traditions.
• Price v. State (Ind. 1993) — Section 1 informs interpretation of rights; text/history show broad protection for liberty/pursuit of happiness, though not unlimited.
• State Election Board v. Bayh (Ind. 1988) — Interpretation controlled by text, history, purpose/structure; Section 1 declares foundational principles.

Article 1, Section 11 (Unreasonable Search or Seizure)

• Jackson v. State (Ind. 2024) — Section 11 independent analysis; police action must be reasonable based on totality; broader than Fourth Amendment in some contexts.
• State v. Gerschoffer (Ind. 2002) — Sobriety checkpoints unreasonable under Section 11; emphasizes state-specific reasonableness standard.
• Watkins v. State (Ind. 2006) — Military-style home entry unreasonable under Section 11 despite warrant; focuses on privacy expectations.
• Litchfield v. State (Ind. 2000) — Section 11 requires reasonableness in light of circumstances; independent of federal law.

Article 1, Section 12 (Due Course of Law / Remedy for Injury to Person/Property/Reputation)

• Section 12 text: "All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay."
• Key cases:
  • Recognizing a Damage Remedy to Enforce Indiana's Bill of Rights (scholarly analysis) — Section 12 provides remedy for constitutional violations, including property injuries.
  • Burress v. State (Ind. App. 1977) — Due course of law requires access to courts/remedy for injuries (person/property/reputation).
  • General interpretation: Courts view Section 12 as guaranteeing access to courts and due process for property/reputation claims (analogous to federal due process but state-specific).

Article 1, Section 16 (Excessive Fines / Bail / Punishments)

• Timbs v. Indiana (U.S. 2019, remanded to Ind. Sup. Ct.) — Excessive Fines Clause incorporated to states via 14th Amendment; Indiana forfeiture of vehicle grossly disproportionate to offense; Section 16 mirrors federal clause.
• Timbs v. Indiana (Ind. 2019, post-remand) — Section 16 provides meaningful protection against excessive fines/forfeitures; proportionality required.
• Dembowski v. State (Ind. 1968) — Penalties must be proportioned to offense; Section 16 requires review of excessiveness.
• Mills v. State (Ind. 1987) — Section 16 mandates proportionality; penalties cannot be excessive relative to offense nature.

These cases support a robust interpretation: Section 1 protects broad inalienable rights (judicially enforceable); Section 11 offers independent search/seizure protection; Section 12 guarantees remedies for property injuries; Section 16 prohibits disproportionate fines/seizures.

what is the address of lpin? oh its just a p o box