ILNews

No constitutional violations occurred when police entered home

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s federal and state constitutional rights were not violated when police officers entered his home without a warrant based on concerns an injured animal or person may be inside.

Police and animal control officers were called to Jonathan Carpenter’s home based on a report of four dogs fighting. When they arrived, they saw the dogs running in and out of the home through an open door. An officer captured three of the dogs and decided to enter the home to search for the fourth dog to make sure there were no other injured animals or people inside. What appeared to be blood was on the walls. No one responded when the officers announced their presence. While searching for the animal, officers found marijuana plants.

Carpenter arrived home while the police were there and was taken into custody. A search warrant was obtained based on what the officers saw in the home, and Carpenter was charged with various drug offenses.

Carpenter filed a motion to suppress, saying the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court denied his motion, which the appeals court affirmed. The judges found exigent circumstances allowed the officers to execute a warrantless search of the home.

“The trial court did not err when it denied Carpenter’s motion to suppress the evidence against him because the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe a violent crime might have occurred, properly executed a search of the premises for that purpose, and the search did not violate Carpenter’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Judge Melissa May wrote in Jonathan D. Carpenter v. State of Indiana, 02A05-1304-CR-207.

They also found no violation under the Indiana Constitution because the officers had reasonable suspicion there was an injured person inside the home.
 

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