ILNews

Police entry violated man's constitutional rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The entry by police into a man’s apartment based on uncorroborated information from an anonymous source violated the man’s federal and state constitutional rights, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. Because of this, the drugs found in the man’s apartment must be suppressed.

East Chicago Police Department officers were trying to execute an arrest warrant for Nelson Hernandez, an auto theft suspect. They went to the address on the warrant, but his mother said he was staying with her sister and gave just a general address.

The officers went to a building where they thought Hernandez was staying based on information from another officer who dropped the injured Hernandez off at that building following an accident. But that officer didn’t have a specific address and the building contained several units above a tavern.

The officers showed a random man outside the building a picture of Hernandez, who the man said was staying at an apartment with a green door. There was only one green door in the building. Officers knocked on the apartment door, which was Luis Duran’s. When he didn’t open the door after several minutes, they kicked the door down, found drugs, and arrested him. The officers later found Hernandez in a different apartment in the building.

The trial court denied Duran’s motion to suppress evidence but certified its order for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.

In Luis E. Duran v. State of Indiana, No. 45S03-0910-CR-430, the justices ruled the officer’s actions violated Duran’s Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 rights. The information available to the officers didn’t satisfy even the least-restrictive reasonable suspicion standard, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. The officers needed reasonable belief that Hernandez was behind the green door, not just a reasonable belief that he lived somewhere in that building.

“In view of the hour and Hernandez’s immobilized condition, if the officers’ belief as to Hernandez’s place of residence was reasonable, it was reasonable to believe he was inside. The issue therefore boils down to whether the police reasonably believed that the apartment with the green door was Hernandez’s residence,” the justice wrote.

The police lacked even reasonable suspicion because they only had statements from the unidentified man who may or may not have had any connection to the apartment building. The information the man provided wasn’t corroborated, so entry violated Duran’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The officers’ actions weren’t reasonable under the state constitution, either, the justices ruled. They rejected the state’s argument that “degree of suspicion” relates to the degree of the officers’ suspicion that Hernandez committed auto theft. If the police had verified Hernandez’s aunt’s residence, they wouldn’t have had to knock on Duran’s door, wrote Justice Boehm. There were also no exigent circumstances in this case.

“The law enforcement needs were not pressing. Hernandez was not a flight risk and nothing prevented the officers from verifying Hernandez’s aunt’s address or embargoing the apartment until either someone emerged or a search warrant could be obtained,” he wrote.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard concurred in result in a separate opinion, finding the anonymous man’s information that Hernandez lived in the apartment with the green door was a sufficient basis for belief that Hernandez was in the apartment when they attempted to arrest him. But the chief  justice joined in reversing because it was not a reasonable basis for doing so in the middle of the night to arrest a relatively immobile suspect.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT