« Courts - Las Vegas judiciary subject of in-depth LA Times examination | Main | Ind. Courts - Marion County juvenile justice under Star review »

Monday, June 12, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides one today

In Phillip W. & Anita B. Richardson v. State of Indiana, a 21-page opinion (with a dissent by Judge Najam beginning on p. 16), Judge Bailey writes:

The Richardsons raise two issues on interlocutory appeal, which we restate as whether the trial court erred by denying their motions to suppress evidence under the Indiana Constitution because: I. An anonymous tip that the Richardsons manufactured methamphetamine did not give police reasonable, articulable suspicion to search their trash; and II. The good faith exception established in Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-5 is inapplicable to the present action. * * *

The anonymous tip, by itself and without further police corroboration, was not sufficiently detailed in predicting the Richardsons’ future actions to justify indiscriminately searching their trash.13 Accordingly, under Litchfield, the items found in the trash were not properly discovered evidence. * * *

Nevertheless, the State argues that we should not apply the exclusionary rule to the present action “because the trooper relied in good faith on the facially valid search warrant that was consistent with prevailing case law at the time the warrant was issued and executed.” Appellee’s Br. at 5. Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-5 provides that, in a prosecution for a crime, a court may not grant a motion to exclude evidence on the grounds that the search or seizure by which the evidence was obtained was unlawful if the law enforcement officer obtained the evidence in good faith. Subsection (b) of that statute explains that evidence is obtained in good faith if it is obtained pursuant to “a state statute, judicial precedent, or court rule that is later declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated.” * * *

Because the search at issue conformed to the prevailing case law at the time, the evidence could not have been properly excluded under Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-516 and, thus, could provide support for the finding of probable cause to issue the warrant to search the Richardsons’ house and property.17 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Richardsons’ motions to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of their trash. Affirmed.

BAKER, J., concurs.
NAJAM, J., dissents with separate opinion.

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion misapplies the statutory good faith exception. Indiana Code Section 35-37-4-5 cannot nullify our Supreme Court’s holding in Litchfield, requiring that a trash search be supported by reasonable suspicion, in this and other cases pending or not yet final when Litchfield was decided. Because Trooper Gill did not have reasonable suspicion to support the trash search, I would reverse. * * *

Under the hierarchy of law governing our state, the Indiana Constitution controls a statute to the contrary enacted by the General Assembly. See Ind. Code § 1-1-2-1. In Litchfield, our Supreme Court determined that Article I, Section 11 requires an “articulable individualized suspicion” before trash may be searched or seized. Litchfield, 824 N.E.2d at 364. And, once more, our Supreme Court has held that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions which constitutes a “clear break with the past” applies retroactively “with no exception.” Smylie, 823 N.E.2d at 687. No exception means no exception. In this case, and other cases in the same procedural posture, the statutory good faith exception must yield to Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court.18 Thus, I respectfully dissent.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 12, 2006 10:24 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions