Appeals court overturns suppression of evidence gathered in search

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A special judge in Orange Circuit Court erred in suppressing evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant that led to a man’s arrest on Class D felony charges of possession of marijuana, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

“Concluding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, we reverse and remand,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the panel.

In State of Indiana v. Douglas E. Shipman, 59A01-1210-CR-471, Shipman successfully argued at the trial court that a warrant to search his home based on the tip of a 17-year-old burglary suspect should be suppressed.

The juvenile’s statements, “were sufficient to allow the issuing magistrate to make a practical, commonsense decision that there was a fair probability that evidence of dealing in and possession of marijuana would be found in Shipman’s home,” Mathias wrote. “The trial court, as a reviewing court, abused its discretion in overruling this determination.”

“There was no reason to suppress the evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule,” Mathias wrote. “We therefore reverse the order of the trial court granting Shipman’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”



  • Jurisdiction or not
    If a person has not harmed another person or damaged any property or violated another persons rights, the court cannot have jurisdiction over them, unless they give it to them, so don't! If arrested to not post bail, do not hire an attorney, appear as ordered and state you are doing so involuntarily and do not enter a plea, invoke your 5th amendment rights, the right to remain silent!
  • Bogus ruling by COA
    If one person tipping police is probable cause, one person could potentially get every persons home in the United States searched. Heresay is not probable cause and this ruling is a joke. Appears that we are back to picking names from a hat to appoint judges to the COA! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any and that is the way the courts like it.
  • Marijuana conviction
    Why are we still putting people in prison for smoking and possessing marijuana?

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

    2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

    3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

    4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

    5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.