Following their hearing of an appellate case Friday, three Indiana Court of Appeals judges encouraged students to pursue a career in law.
“We need lawyers in Indiana,” said Appeals Court Judge Paul Felix. “We see more and more people trying to represent themselves, and it’s not an easy process.”
Felix was one judge on a panel who heard oral arguments in an appeals case at Indiana University Northwest on Friday. He was joined by Judges Nancy Vaidik and Stephen Scheele, both of whom are from Northwest Indiana.
Appeals on Wheels is an educational program that travels to high schools, colleges, law schools and courtrooms throughout Indiana. Court of Appeals judges hear oral arguments in real cases and allow visitors to understand more of the judicial process.
Appeals on Wheels last came to IUN in February 2025, the program’s first visit to Gary since 2002. According to the court’s website, the program heard more than 400 cases between 2001 and 2013.
Following the hearing, the judges participate in a question-and-answer session with participants. Questions asked Friday included what the next steps in the appeals process are, how they deal with a statewide legal shortage, and how their job affects public policy.
Judges cannot answer questions about the specific case.
Friday’s case was Bisel vs. State, an appeal for Dede Bisel, a Jay County woman who was charged with dealing in methamphetamine, battery by bodily waste, maintaining a common nuisance, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia.
Jay County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Tony Lennartz received information about possible drug activity at Bisel’s house, and he performed a “knock and talk,” which involves an officer knocking on the door to ask to speak with occupants or search the residence. The technique is used when the officer doesn’t have an arrest or search warrant, and it’s considered a consensual encounter, according to the Office of Justice Programs.
No one answered the door during Lennartz’s “knock and talk,” and he returned a few days later to see a man and woman enter the home through the back door. The woman — who was not Bisel — answered, and marijuana smoke came out of the home.
Lennartz was in his squad car, calling for backup and applying for a search warrant, when the two people left the house, so he asked if Bisel was inside. They said yes, Lennartz told them to return to the home and knock on the door.
Bisel answered, then tried to slam the door and go to the living room. Lennartz entered the home to detain her.
Bisel resisted, kicked and pushed him and other officers. Lennartz applied for a warrant that was granted the same day, and police found 34 grams of methamphetamine, 54 grams of marijuana, and paraphernalia that included scales.
Bisel’s case is still pending, according to online court records, and her notice of appeal was received on June 6, 2025. According to the case records, she filed motions to suppress, which the trial court denied.
In her appeal, Bisel argues that the trial court made an error in denying her motions, claiming that the “knock and talk” and warrantless entry violated the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions.
Bisel’s attorney, Stephen Gray, argued during Friday’s Appeals on Wheels case, saying that he has not found a single case that allows police to continually use the “knock and talk” method after previous attempts have failed.
“The key is that he did it multiple times,” Gray said. “He did it at least three times, and two of them were within an hour. … I don’t know of a single case that allows police to continue to harass residents by continuing to do the ‘knock and talk.’”
Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Anwarzai argued Friday that Lennartz did not violate Bisel’s constitutional rights because evidence inside the home was obtained from a search warrant obtained prior to his entry into the home.
“The information was based on tips from the community,” Anwarzai said. “I believe that in determining whether or not the evidence should come in at trial, we have to look at whether or not the evidence was illegally obtained.”
The court will deliver an opinion on Bisel’s appeal at a later date. Opinions are typically released in 30 days, Vaidik said.
