ILNews

Good-faith exception not applicable

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana trial court erred when it denied a defendant's motion to suppress evidence because the good-faith exception doesn't apply in this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

In Brea Rice v. State of Indiana, No. 55A04-0902-CR-99, Brea Rice argued the drugs found in her purse after she was arrested on a warrant for receiving stolen property shouldn't be allowed into evidence because the search that led to the warrant wasn't supported by probable cause.

Mooresville Police officers Yarnell and Harris executed a search warrant of the home Rice rented and lived in with Brian Nysewander to find stolen property allegedly stored there. The search didn't turn up any of the missing property, but officers photographed a motorcycle helmet in the garage before leaving. That helmet turned out to be reported stolen, so police filed an affidavit of probable cause to arrest Rice and Nysewander.

Officer Whitley saw Rice at her back door as he drove by and stopped to arrest her because he knew she had a warrant. A search of her purse at the police department turned up two marijuana joints and a small amount of methamphetamine.

Rice was charged with possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. The receiving stolen property charge was later dismissed without prejudice, and Rice filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drug evidence.

The trial court acknowledged the arrest warrant shouldn't haven't been issued but found the police conduct could fall under the good-faith exception. There's no question Whitely acted in good faith in serving the arrest warrant; however, the actions of the officers who originate warrants must also be considered, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Nothing in the record suggests the affidavit was deliberately misleading or false, but it did fail to show any connection between Rice and the crime of which she was accused, the judge continued.

"If we were to apply the good faith exception in this case and hold it was objectively reasonable for Officer Whitley to rely on a warrant supported by an affidavit wholly lacking probable cause, officers would have no incentive to discover and attest to facts amounting to probable cause in future affidavits, the defendant's right to seek review of the probable cause determination would be empty, and the exclusionary rule would have no meaning," she wrote.

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement from committing constitutional violations, and evidence should only be suppressed if it can be said the officer had knowledge or may properly be charged with the knowledge the search was unconstitutional. Yarnell may be charged with knowledge that an arrest warrant issued on the basis of his affidavit was unconstitutional, and as in Hensley v. State, 778 N.E.2d 484, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), exclusion can therefore have a deterrent effect by ensuring future affidavits contain sufficient information for a judicial officer to determine probable cause, wrote Judge Robb.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT