ILNews

Justices: Meth arrest of man at rental storage unit violated Fourth Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s conviction and 45-year sentence on a meth charge cannot stand because the police search at a rental storage unit that led to his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protections, a majority of the Indiana Supreme Court ruled.

Four of five justices agreed to overturn an Elkhart Superior jury’s verdict affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indiana, 20S05-1301-CR-10.  

Kevin Clark was arrested in August 2009 after police arrived at a 24-hour self-storage facility owned by Robert Dunlap, who complained to police that he believed a renter of one of the units might be living there. When Dunlap saw renter Dennis Collins and two other men at the site late at night, Dunlap called police and asked them to help remove Collins from the facility.

When Elkhart police arrived, they approached the three men in a manner that the majority concluded was not consensual. As the men were leaving the unit, Clark dropped a black bag he was carrying as police approached. When police persisted in questioning, he admitted having marijuana in the bag.

Police then proceeded to search his nearby car and found materials commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine. Clark ultimately was charged with and convicted of Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine.

But a majority opinion written by Justice Steven David concluded Elkhart Superior Judge George W. Biddlecome wrongly denied Clark’s repeated efforts to suppress the search evidence. “The violation of Clark’s Fourth Amendment rights in this case was the direct jumping-off point to the discovery and seizure of all of the substantive evidence used to convict him,” David wrote in a 4-1, 29-page opinion from which only Justice Mark Massa dissented.

“Without repeating the analysis in full, we note that it would also apply to the same evidence when it was re-found following execution of the search warrant. Because none of that evidence should have been admitted at a trial against him, the conviction cannot stand.”

The majority characterized the encounter leading to the arrest as a “fishing expedition” that quickly spiraled from the initial purpose of the police response.

“In short, the officers encountered three men that they did not know, in a place where people are permitted to be, doing something completely in line with the expected activity at that location, at a time when people might be expected to be found there (or, given that it was a twenty-four-hour facility, at least not at a time where people are not permitted),” David wrote.

The majority noted that officers who came to the scene ordered the three men to sit, and after Clark initially refused to answer questions about the contents of the bag, he made the marijuana admission only after an officer told him he would employ a K9 that would alert to any narcotics in the bag.

“Thus, in a very short period of time what began as (at most) police support of an essentially civil matter turned quickly into a fishing expedition for narcotics employing threats of a K9 officer as the bait and hook — an expedition bordering on interrogation and wholly unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, or anything other than the officers’ apparent hunch,” David wrote.

Another problem the majority noted in the analysis: no evidence in the record specifically prohibited a renter from living in the units.

“We therefore are left with the conclusion that Clark’s admission to possessing marijuana, the marijuana and other contents of his black bag, and the contents and state of his vehicle, were all fruits of his unlawful detention. As such, all of this evidence should have been suppressed and it was error to admit it at trial,” the majority held.

In dissent, Massa said he would affirm the trial court and unanimous COA ruling affirming it.

“The Court’s thoughtful and meticulous parsing of the facts and the law, in the end, leaves one overarching question unanswered: what should the police have done?” Massa wrote.

“When called at midnight to a 24-hour storage facility in a high-crime area to help the owner evict a customer improperly living in a unit, should they have refused to come? I doubt it. Once there, should they have declined to investigate further and not accompanied the owner from the gate to the unit? Again, I think not. Most critically, once they entered the unit and saw Clark drop his bag, should they have looked the other way and departed?

“… Once they saw Clark drop his bag, I would conclude they did have such a suspicion, whatever the tone of their ensuing instructions. It was Clark’s subsequent admission, as the majority notes, that led to his arrest and all that followed — most of which this Court would approve, had it not found all that fruit poisoned,” Massa wrote.

 
 

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT