ILNews

COA reverses conviction in trash-search case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to deal, citing an Indiana Supreme Court case that prohibits introducing evidence at trial that was obtained following a police search of trash. The court also ruled the good faith exception does not apply.

In Ralph Belvedere v. State of Indiana, 48A05-0611-CR-669, Belvedere appealed his conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to deal and maintaining a common nuisance, arguing the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) should be retroactive and apply to his case. Belvedere was arrested after Anderson Detective Kevin Earley, based on a tip, searched Belvedere's trash for evidence of marijuana. After finding seeds, stems, and a small amount of marijuana, Earley requested a search warrant of Belvedere's house. When marijuana was found during the search, he arrested Belvedere.

During his trial, the court denied Belvedere's motion to suppress the evidence police took from his trash that prompted the search warrant. The trial court sentenced Belvedere to six years probation.

Litchfield was decided in March 2005, almost a year after Earley searched Belvedere's trash. Judge Edward Najam wrote in the opinion that Litchfield applies to all cases that were pending on direct review or not yet final at the time Litchfield was decided; Belvedere's case was not yet decided as he was convicted in July 2006. For Earley to conduct a lawful search, he needed to have an "articulable individualized suspicion," but his search was based exclusively on information he received from a source. The information the source had was general information about Belvedere's race, age, and residence, but many people could know that information. Earley's search violated Belvedere's rights under the Indiana Constitution, and all evidence from that search must be suppressed unless an exception to the exclusionary rule can apply, wrote Judge Najam.

If Earley got the evidence from Belvedere's trash out of good faith, then it may be admissible. Any application of the good faith doctrine must take into account the constitutional standards from Litchfield. The majority agreed the good faith exception cannot be applied to this case, and many others, because it would avoid application of a newly announced rule of constitutional law, wrote Judge Najam.

In Indiana, the good faith exception can be applied if the evidence was obtained pursuant to "a state statute, judicial precedent, or court rule that is later declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated." Applying the good faith statute to Belvedere would violate his rights under the Indiana Constitution. To apply the good faith statue here would negate the Indiana Supreme Court ruling in Litchfield and require the court to ignore the retroactivity of Litchfield, the judge wrote.

Judge Cale Bradford dissented in a separate opinion, writing he believes the good faith exception applies to this case. The trash search was legal when it was performed, wrote Judge Bradford. He cited Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979), in which the Supreme Court noted that evidence found at the time a person was arrested after a lawful arrest and search should not be suppressed.
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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT