ILNews

Judges find evidence properly admitted in drug case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

North Manchester resident Michael Carpenter lost his attempt before the Indiana Court of Appeals to have evidence tossed out that was collected when police officers arrived at his home attempting to serve an arrest warrant for a different man. Police believed the man being sought lived at Carpenter’s residence.

Wabash County Sheriff’s deputies were attempting to serve an arrest warrant for Austin Howard. The arrest warrant for Howard listed his last known address as an intersection in the county. Deputies asked North Manchester police officer Jeremy Jones to assist with the address. Jones told deputies Howard lived at a nearby house. Frank and Emily Price now live at that home with Carpenter.

When deputies arrived to serve the warrant, Deputy Matthew Cox saw something come out of a side window to the bathroom. He saw several people in the bathroom, including Carpenter, who was dumping something into the toilet. Cox yelled to stop and that he was a police officer. Officers saw what they believed were items used to make methamphetamine in the bathroom. They obtained a search warrant and later arrested Carpenter.

He was charged with Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in meth and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, but he was only convicted of the drug charge. Carpenter’s attorney made repeated objections to the initial search.

In Michael Carpenter v. State of Indiana, 85A05-1202-CR-57, Carpenter argued that police didn’t have a legitimate reason for being on the property because Howard had not lived at the property for a couple of years and the officers did not have reason to believe that Howard was at the property. Carpenter also claimed that Cox’s initial entry into the side yard, looking into the window, and returning to the window with another deputy was unlawful.

The Court of Appeals wasn’t persuaded by Carpenter’s claims his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The judges concluded the arrest warrant was valid and the officers had the authority to walk around the curtilage, where they could notice things in plain view such as through a bathroom window, Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

The appellate court also found that Carpenter waived his state constitutional argument, but even if he hadn’t, he would not prevail.  

 

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT