ILNews

Court rejects stale trash evidence argument

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected an argument that evidence found in a trash search was stale because no other garbage had been collected in the past two weeks and that seized material could have been too old.

In the case of Donald T. Shell v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0904-CR-325, an appellate panel delved into a man’s felony convictions for drug possession in Madison County that resulted in an 18-year sentence. The appeals judges affirmed the ruling by Madison Superior Judge Dennis Carroll, which admitted evidence from the police search warrant investigation of Donald T. Shell’s home and denied Shell’s request for disclosure of a confidential informant’s identity.

Anderson police investigated Shell in summer 2008 after a confidential informant told police that Shell was selling cocaine and marijuana while living at his girlfriend’s home. Police couldn’t initially search the trash because none was placed outside for two weeks, but in the third week garbage was placed in front of the residence on the night before the scheduled trash collection. Inside two trash bags, police found plant materials and stems that tested positive for marijuana, and several plastic baggies with white residue tested positive for cocaine. Police obtained a search warrant for the residence, and found drugs, paraphernalia, and cash hidden inside.

Shell was charged with six felonies and later filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, claiming the search warrant was based on evidence found during an improper trash pull. The trial judge denied Shell’s motion and other claims, and overruled his objections at trial where he was found guilty on five of the felony counts. He received a concurrent sentence totaling 18 years.

On appeal, Shell raised the claim about the stale trash evidence that meant the residential search warrant was invalid and the evidence should have been tossed.

“Although the age of the information supporting an application for a warrant can be a critical factor when determining the existence of probable cause, our courts have not established a bright-line rule regarding the amount of time that may elapse between obtaining the facts upon which the search warrant is based and the issue of the warrant,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote. “Shell argues that because no trash had been put out for collection in the two weeks prior to the trash search, the evidence found in the trash search was also stale because it could have been placed in the trash in the two weeks before the search. Shell cites no authority for this novel proposition, and we reject it.”

Using guidance outlined in the landmark decision State v. Litchfield, 824 N.E.2d 356, 363 (Ind. 2005), the appellate panel concluded the trash search was supported by the necessary “articulable individualized suspicion” and that the obtained evidence was admissible. The appellate court also affirmed Judge Carroll’s other findings and the sentence imposed.
 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT