ILNews

COA affirms trial court in finding drug evidence was admissible

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a trial court did not err in admitting evidence obtained from a search of a purse and hotel room.

In Canon Harper v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-1012-CR-687, Canon Harper was charged with dealing in cocaine, possession of cocaine, dealing in a narcotic drug, and possession of a narcotic drug, all Class A felonies; two counts of resisting law enforcement, battery of a law enforcement officer, and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors; and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony.

In 2008, police noticed that the car Harper was driving had no working license plate light. The officers observed the car pull into a motel parking lot and park. Passenger Adrian Porch got out, carrying a purse toward a hotel room. Before he could enter the room, a woman inside slammed the door shut.

The police officers asked Harper and Porch to whom the purse belonged, and Harper said an ex-girlfriend left it in his car. When asked, both men consented to a search of the purse, which contained 48 grams of cocaine, 30 grams of heroin, scales, razor blades and aluminum foil. One officer placed Porch under arrest, and the other officer attempted to arrest Harper, who resisted and caused the officer to hit his head against the building.

Other officers arrived, and as they discussed the matter with the hotel manager, the manager said Harper had rented the hotel room that Porch had earlier approached. The manager evicted the room’s occupants and gave police permission to search it, whereupon police found about three grams of heroin and a coffee grinder, blender, razor blade and flour sifter.

The appellate court wrote that while Harper did not physically possess any of the contraband, an accused may be convicted of possession charges based upon constructive possession.

Harper’s possessory interest in the vehicle is sufficient to establish his constructive possession of the purse, the COA held.

With respect to contraband discovered in the motel, Harper contends the possessory interest rule does not apply to possession of a premises where the possession is non-exclusive, citing Pier v. State, 400 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) for support.

But the COA wrote that Harper’s case is unlike Pier, where the evidence established the defendant had been absent from his premises for 48 hours prior to when contraband was found. Harper had checked into the motel room on Nov. 11, 2008, and the evidence was found later that day.

The COA affirmed the trial court in all regards.



 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT