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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT