ILNews

COA: Police escort into home does not violate 4th Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday decided that a police officer’s refusal to allow a defendant to enter his or her residence without being accompanied by an officer until a search warrant has been obtained is a reasonable seizure that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The novel issue arose in Cynthia Sugg v. State of Indiana, 31A05-1208-CR-397, in which Cynthia Sugg challenged her numerous methamphetamine- and marijuana-related convictions. Sugg and her husband in February 2012 separately purchased on the same day from the same drug store a box of 48-pills of pseudoephedrine. Indiana State Police detective Katrina Smith with the methamphetamine suppression unit saw in the National Pseudoephedrine Log Exchange the next day that Sugg and her husband had made the purchases. The two already faced charges of manufacturing methamphetamine, so Smith and other officers went to Sugg’s house for a “knock and talk.”

The officers observed some items outside that could be used to make meth and found Sugg outside with no coat or shoes on. They identified themselves to her and said they were investigating meth manufacturing. Sugg lied to officers about purchasing the pills the previous day and denied the officers entrance into her home. The police sought a search warrant and, during that time, said they would allow Sugg back into her home to get a jacket and shoes only if she was escorted by police so she couldn’t destroy evidence or get a weapon. She allowed it, and while in there, an officer saw marijuana and smelled it.

Sugg was later arrested after the search warrant was executed, convicted on six charges, and sentenced to 10 years. Sugg appealed, claiming the evidence was admitted in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

The COA affirmed her convictions, relying on the United States Supreme Court case, Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001). The restraint imposed was only for the short time it took to get the search warrant, and police had probable cause to believe her home contained contraband, Judge James Kirsch wrote.

There was also no violation of the state Constitution, the judges held, finding under the totality of the circumstances, the intrusion was reasonable.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT