ILNews

COA affirms denial of motion to suppress

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The actions of police officers who showed up on a man’s property to investigate a complaint – which led to the discovery of marijuana plants – were reasonable, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

John Dora, who owned property in Brown County, argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. Dora held a party for Michael Shearer’s birthday at his property and invited friends over. Shearer lived in the house on Dora’s property and Dora lived in an RV while he was in town. During the party, Holly Parker arrived intoxicated and tried to find Dora, who hid from her in the barn. Parker yelled while kicking and beating the RV. Her cell phone accidentally dialed her daughter’s phone, and her daughter believed her mother was in trouble. Police were called to the scene, but Parker was gone when police arrived.

Shearer and Dora told the officers about the damage Parker caused while there, and the officers, while looking around the RV, discovered marijuana plants growing in a flower bed next to the RV on the driver’s side. Dora was charged with possession of marijuana.

On interlocutory appeal, the COA upheld the denial of Dora’s motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana found in the flower beds. They found the warrantless searches did not violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment or under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

“Dora knowingly exposed the trailer to the Officers and therefore cannot persuasively argue that he had a privacy interest on the driver’s side of the RV. Had Dora simply told the Officers that Parker was not on the property and refrained from describing the damage to the RV and the trailer, the Officers would have arguably fulfilled the purpose of their visit, and been required to depart Dora’s property,” wrote Judge Patricia Riley in John V. Dora v. State of Indiana, No. 07A01-1102-CR-51.

ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  2. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

  3. That comment on this e-site, which reports on every building, courtroom or even insignificant social movement by beltway sycophants as being named to honor the yet-quite-alive former chief judge, is truly laughable!

  4. Is this a social parallel to the Mosby prosecutions in Baltimore? Progressive ideology ever seeks Pilgrims to burn at the stake. (I should know.)

  5. The Conour embarrassment is an example of why it would be a good idea to NOT name public buildings or to erect monuments to "worthy" people until AFTER they have been dead three years, at least. And we also need to stop naming federal buildings and roads after a worthless politician whose only achievement was getting elected multiple times (like a certain Congressman after whom we renamed the largest post office in the state). Also, why have we renamed BOTH the Center Township government center AND the new bus terminal/bum hangout after Julia Carson?

ADVERTISEMENT