ILNews

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.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT