ILNews

Information used to obtain search warrant splits Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the statements from three individuals were hearsay and initially led law enforcement to enter the wrong apartment, a split Indiana Court of Appeals found, collectively, the information supported probable cause.

Brian Bradley was convicted of Class D felony dealing in marijuana after Ripley County law enforcement, based on tips from informants, entered his apartment and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

Officers learned Bradley was selling marijuana from a woman they arrested for possession of marijuana. The woman told officers she purchased the marijuana from a man nicknamed Shrek but, according to friends, was actually named Brian. She said he lived on the second floor of an antiques store in Batesville.

At 1:24 a.m., police entered the second-floor residence but found the apartment belonged to a couple. Separately, the couple told officers they had also purchased marijuana from Shrek, also known as Brian, who lived on the third floor.

A few hours later, police were able to obtain another warrant and searched Bradley’s apartment.  

At a hearing on Bradley’s motion to suppress evidence, the woman changed her testimony, saying she never directly bought marijuana from Brian, but rather her friends did so for her.

Later in the trial, the man who lived in the second-floor apartment backtracked from his original statements to police, saying he never purchased drugs directly from Bradley.   

However, the Court of Appeals found the warrants were legal because they were based on what police knew at the time and not on the statements the informants gave in court. That information, the COA ruled, was enough to support Bradley’s conviction for Class D felony dealing in marijuana.  

 “We find that (Ripley County Sheriff’s Department) Detective (Abraham) Hildebrand’s probable-cause affidavit contains information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the majority in Brian Bradley v. State of Indiana, 69A04-1306-CR-268. “…Here, there are bits and pieces of evidence tending to show probable cause that marijuana would be found in Brian’s third-floor apartment. Although each declarant, standing alone, may not have conclusively established probable cause, the evidence in the affidavit, when fitted together and viewed collectively, is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of probable cause.”

Judge Patricia Riley dissented finding probable cause did not exist for the probable cause affidavit. The only details corroborated by all three informants are the name and nickname of the individual from whom marijuana was purchased. Also, the police did not substantiate the information and material facts are missing from the affidavit.  

“In cases like this – where the officers ultimately found marijuana, but only did so by disregarding the mandates of probable cause – our justice system pays the price,” Riley wrote. “The ‘privacy of all Hoosiers’ is put in jeopardy when constitutional protections are circumvented in order to secure evidence.”

 
 

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