ILNews

COA: Officer's observation didn't violate man's rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant’s various drug convictions and sentence, finding the police officer didn’t violate the man’s Fourth Amendment rights by looking in the defendant’s car when trying to serve a warrant.

In Jeffrey D. Boggs v. State of Indiana, No. 40A01-0907-CR-346, Jeffrey Boggs argued the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained from a search warrant that was based on information discovered during a warrantless and unconstitutional search of his car on his property. Police went to Boggs’ home to see if he was home to pick up his minor daughter who was in the car of a woman who was arrested on an outstanding warrant. While on the way to Boggs’ home, police discovered he was wanted on a warrant in Ohio.

Boggs wasn’t home and as the officer was leaving Boggs’ property, he shined a flashlight into a car he knew belonged to Boggs. Inside he saw an altered propane tank sticking out of a duffle bag. Police then got a search warrant for the property and found various items and drugs used to make methamphetamine.

Boggs moved to suppress the evidence, which was denied. On appeal, he argued the evidence shouldn’t have been admitted because the officer’s observation of the tank in the car was an unconstitutional search of the car parked in his driveway.

Boggs’ Fourth Amendment rights weren’t violated, the appellate court ruled, because the officer had a legitimate reason for being on Boggs’ property, he didn’t move or manipulate anything in order to see the tank, and he never left the normal routes of ingress or egress. Caselaw also says that the use of a flashlight doesn’t transform an officer’s observations into a search.

The Court of Appeals also ruled the state proved the identity of certain substances admitted into evidence, including pseudoephedrine and anhydrous ammonia, and proved that Boggs’ is a habitual offender.

The appellate court affirmed his 40-year aggregate sentence, but did remand the case to the trial court to correct the sentencing order to reflect that Boggs was sentenced to 15 years for his Class B felony conviction of attempted dealing in methamphetamine, enhanced by 25 years for the habitual offender finding.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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