ILNews

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.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

    COMMENTS POLICY
    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

    3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

    4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

    5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

    ADVERTISEMENT