ILNews

COA affirms warrantless entry

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision to deny a defendant's motion to suppress his arrest and charges, ruling the defendant's behavior justified the police officers to enter his home without a warrant.

In William McDermott v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0609-CR-755, McDermott brought an interlocutory appeal of the trial court order denying his motion to suppress his arrest and charges stemming from that. McDermott argued the police officers who entered his home were not justified and did so without a warrant.

Marion County Sheriff's Deputy Jeffrey Wood was flagged down by a passing motorist in Beech Grove and told there was a man sitting in the roadway and interfering with traffic just south of where the officer was located. Wood approached the man, McDermott, and asked to speak with him.

McDermott cursed the officer, ran between two houses, and stood in the grass. Still refusing to talk to Wood, McDermott then walked off, ignoring Wood's questions, and entered a home without using a key. Wood, unsure if McDermott lived there or was intruding, called for back up, and continued to try to speak to McDermott. He asked for identification from McDermott to prove he lived at the home. When backup arrived, Wood and Deputy Eric Snow entered the home and Wood used a taser on McDermott, who was uncooperative and showed signs of aggression. The officers later determined McDermott lived at the home.

McDermott was charged with resisting law enforcement, disorderly conduct, and public intoxication. At trial, McDermott orally moved to suppress his arrest and all charges stemming from it. After hearing Wood's testimony, the court denied McDermott's motion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the arrest and conviction, ruling neither state nor federal constitutional violations were committed. The sheriff's deputies did not violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution when they entered his home without a warrant because Deputy Wood had met all the requirements under Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 935 (Ind. 2006), to determine the reasonableness of police conduct under all of the circumstances. The court considers the degree of suspicion, concern, or knowledge a person violated the law; the degree of intrusiveness that the search or arrest method imposes on the person; and the extent of law enforcement needs.

McDermott's behavior was suspicious and Wood called for backup because of concern when McDermott entered the home without proving he lived there. All of the facts show the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDermott's motion to suppress based on violations of Article 1, Section 11.

Under the facts of the case, the court found the state met its burden of demonstrating probable cause and exigent circumstances to allow the officers to enter the home without a warrant. The appellate court also affirmed the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying McDermott's motion to suppress citing violations of his Fourth Amendment rights.
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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT