Judges disagree in police entry case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues' decision denying a man's motion to suppress evidence because he didn't believe the police officers were justified in kicking down the man's door and entering his apartment.

In his dissent in Luis E. Duran v. State of Indiana,  No. 45A03-0811-CR-569, Judge Carr Darden cited the fact the police were trying to serve a routine arrest warrant for Nelson Hernandez for a charge of auto theft and the officers' testimony about how they came to Luis Duran's apartment instead and their actions inside as reasons for why he would grant Duran's motion to suppress evidence.

A bystander in an apartment complex told police that Hernandez lived on the second floor of the building and had a green door. That apartment actually belonged to Duran; Hernandez was staying in a different apartment on the second floor. Police knew Hernandez had been recently injured and on crutches.

The police knocked on the green-door apartment, to which Duran responded, "Hold on a minute" after police identified themselves. After hearing some rustling and then silence, the police kicked down the door and found Duran alone in the apartment with a bag of cocaine on the window sill. He was charged with Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony possession of cocaine; the trial court denied his motion to suppress.

Duran argued on appeal the entry into his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

The majority examined caselaw, including Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212, 215-16 (1981), and the Circuit courts' interpretations of the holdings to conclude that the police needed reasonable belief that Hernandez resided at the green-door apartment and that Hernandez was at the apartment at the time of entry.

The majority found the officers' reliance on the testimony from the bystander to be reasonable because one of the officers could corroborate part of the bystander's story, the green door was important because the apartment lacked identifying numbers or mailboxes, and the man didn't want to be identified because he didn't want to be "in trouble with" Hernandez. The officers also believed Hernandez to be in the apartment because they knew he was immobile because of an injury and the long delay in answering the door.

Judges Margret Robb and L. Mark Bailey ruled the officers didn't violate Duran's Fourth Amendment rights or his rights under Article I, Section 11 because the Litchfield factors, in their totality, favor a finding the officers' conduct was reasonable.

Judge Darden relied heavily on the conflicting testimony of the arresting officers surrounding the entry of the apartment for why he would grant the motion to suppress.

"I appreciate the majority's careful attention to precedent in reaching the result it has. However, I am deeply troubled by testimony indicating that police officers believe that when the resident of a dwelling does not open a door, after having simply heard the announcement that 'police' are outside, the officers may kick in that door to gain entry," he wrote.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.