« Environment - "Crawford County residents question biomass power project" | Main | Ind. Decisions - One Indiana decision today from 7th Circuit »
Friday, January 15, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides one today
In State of Indiana v. Michael Haldeman/ Rachel Lawson, an 8-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Dickson writes:
Each of these two consolidated appeals presents the same question: whether the State must comply with Indiana Criminal Rule 25, which imposes a stay pending preliminary appellate review of a warrant authorizing interception of telephonic or telegraphic communications, not-withstanding the legislative repeal of the statutory provision requiring such review. We hold that the State was not authorized to disregard its obligations under Rule 25, which was in effect and had not been repealed or modified. Under the facts of these cases, however, the failure to seek preliminary appellate review does not require reversal because the defendants have not demon-strated that the State's failure affected their substantial rights. * * *The trial court suppressed the evidence in these cases solely because of the State's failure to comply with the preliminary appellate review requirement of Rule 25. The State appealed and, pursuant to Appellate Rule 56(A), immediately sought emergency transfer to this Court, which we granted. * * *
In each of the two cases, both of which were pending before Judge Christopher Burnham, Morgan Superior Court No. 2, the same attorney represented each defendant and filed a substantially identical motion to suppress the wiretap evidence and all derivative evidence, based upon the State's failure to seek preliminary appellate review pursuant to Rule 25. The defendants' motions did not otherwise challenge the warrants on procedural or substantive grounds, including probable cause, reasonableness, or improper execution by the officers. In identical, thoughtful, eight-page orders issued the same day, Judge Burnham granted each motion to suppress. From these orders the State appeals. * * *
The legislature's repeal of Indiana Code ยง 35-33.5-3-3, which required an automatic ap-plication to and review by the Indiana Court of Appeals before the execution of a wiretap war-rant, did not invalidate Criminal Rule 25 and its requirement that a prosecutor must file a petition for review by said court before implementation of a wiretap warrant. The State failed to comply with Rule 25 with respect to the warrants which were the bases for the evidence in the present cases. Neither defendant has asserted or demonstrated, however, that compliance with Rule 25 would have produced any impediment upon the execution of the warrants. Because the defen-dants thus failed to establish that the error or defect in failure to comply with Rule 25 affected the defendants' substantial rights, it was legal error to grant the motions to suppress.
We reverse the trial court orders granting the defendants' motions to suppress and remand each of the cases herein consolidated for further proceedings.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan and Boehm JJ., concur. Rucker, J., concurs in result.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 15, 2010 12:34 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions