Justices affirm convictions after toddler found wandering by police

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the admittance of drugs and other evidence obtained by police after searching an apartment following a report of an unattended child. The justices found both parents gave their consent for police to make sure the apartment was fit before returning the child to their care.

Police found an unsupervised toddler wandering half-naked near a pond in an apartment complex. Nick McIlquham approached police and told them he was the father and he had fallen asleep while watching her. Police told McIlquham they need to come back and make sure his apartment was safe for the girl and they would likely call child protection services. McIlquham consented and as they entered the apartment, he quickly headed for the kitchen. The officers saw him put something in his pants, so they conducted a pat down and discovered marijuana. More drugs and paraphernalia were in plain sight.

Police called the girl’s mother, who was the person who signed the apartment lease, and when she arrived home was upset to learn police had found drugs. They told her that CPS would be notified but it was not their decision as to whether the girl would be removed from the home. She consented to a full search of the home, and officers found more drugs and a gun in a bedroom. McIlquham admitted they were his and the girl’s mother did not know about them.

He pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent and marijuana possession charges, and went to trial on firearm, dealing and paraphernalia counts. He sought to suppress the admittance of the evidence found during the searches, claiming he and the mother consented under duress of threats to take the girl into CPS custody. The trial court denied the motion and he was found guilty of the firearm and paraphernalia charges.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, but the justices affirmed on the grounds that McIlquham and the mother validly consented to the searches.

The justices found no coercive words or actions in this case. Justice Loretta Rush noted that McIlquham initially approached police, so the encounter began as consensual and that he was allowed to carry his daughter back to the apartment.

“[W]hen Defendant told police ‘it was okay’ to check the apartment, we find no reason not to take his consent at face value,” she wrote in Nick McIlquham v. State of Indiana, 49S05-1401-CR-28.

“Making a ‘bee line’ to the kitchen, then furtively stuffing unknown objects into his pockets, amply warranted a pat-down for officer safety — and thus to discovery of the scales, cash, and additional marijuana that were in plain view on the counter. It was well within the trial court’s discretion to admit those items into evidence on the basis of consent, so we need not address the “community caretaking” rationale on which the Court of Appeals relied.”

The justices also rejected McIlquham’s claims that the mother was in custody or under duress when she consented to the apartment search. Rush noted that police told her it was up to the Department of Child Services and not police as to whether the girl would be taken into custody by CPS. And the record shows that the mother was eager for police help to find and confiscate anything that would be hazardous to her child.



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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?