ILNews

Mother, wife could consent to search of home for meth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man convicted of making methamphetamine objected to his conviction, arguing that his mother, who he claims has Alzheimer’s disease, and his wife did not have the authority to allow police to search his home on the report he was making the drug.

Jennifer and Casey Walker lived with Casey Walker’s mother, Mary Walker, who owned the home. Casey Walker served as her power of attorney, but his mother was not under a guardianship. Jennifer Walker saw her husband put something into a plastic bottle and smelled a chemical odor, so she believed he was making meth. She took her mother-in-law to her sister’s home and called police.

Police met with the wife and mother, and they consented to police entering the house. Police knocked on the door several times and went inside after receiving no response. They placed Casey Walker in handcuffs and noticed a chemical odor in the home. Officers also saw objects related to the manufacturing of meth. This led to a search warrant, where officers found other related items.

Casey Walker sought to suppress the evidence, claiming the search warrant wasn’t valid and his wife and mother couldn’t authorize police to enter the home. His motions were denied, and he was convicted of Class A felony manufacturing meth and sentenced to 30 years.

In Casey Walker v. State of Indiana, 76A04-1204-CR-207, Casey Walker argued his mother was incompetent and could not consent. But at the time of the search, Mary Walker wasn’t under a guardianship and was not divested of making decisions for herself, Judge John Baker wrote. In addition, Casey Walker didn’t present any evidence regarding his mother’s mental capacity.

The judges found Jennifer Walker had the ability to consent to the search: She is Casey Walker’s wife and they live in the same home. They also found the case distinguishable from Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006).

“Unlike in Randolph, there is no indication that Walker explicitly refused consent. Thus, the trial court properly admitted the evidence discovered during the search, and we affirm the decision of the trial court,” Baker 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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT