ILNews

Police following drug package wire into home unconstitutional, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Police violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure when they used a parcel wire to track the opening of a shipment of marijuana in an Indianapolis man’s home, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Tuesday.

There were no exigent circumstances excepting the warrant requirement, the panel ruled, upholding the Marion Superior Court’s grant of a motion to suppress evidence. The state appealed that ruling, and the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed in State of Indiana v. Gregory Lagrone, 49A05-1203-CR-135.

Lagrone was charged with Class D felony counts of dealing marijuana and possession of marijuana after police intercepted a package of marijuana shipped to a hotel in northwest Indianapolis, placed a GPS device and a “parcel wire” into the package, and called Lagrone to pick it up.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers followed Lagrone after he picked up the package and waited for a signal from the parcel wire that would be triggered when the package was opened and exposed to light.

When police received a signal the package was open, they knocked on the door and announced themselves as police, but no one answered. They forcibly entered the home, secured it and then requested and obtained a warrant. The trial court granted Lagrone’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from the search.

“We conclude that the warrantless use of the parcel wire to monitor the package within Lagrone’s house violated the Fourth Amendment,” Judge Edward Najam wrote for the panel. “Due to that violation … the State cannot justify its warrantless intrusion into Lagrone’s home under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment.”

The ruling did not place restrictions on the use of GPS systems and parcel wires as investigatory tools, however.

“In sum, we conclude that the installation of the GPS device and the parcel wire into the package Lagrone picked up from the hotel did not violate the Fourth Amendment because any privacy interest Lagrone had in the package was lost when UPS opened the package,” Najam wrote. “Nor did the police monitoring of the GPS device to track the package en route to Lagrone’s home violate the Fourth Amendment, because officers also tracked Lagrone on the highway visually. Moreover, the evidence presented does not show that the GPS monitoring continued after Lagrone carried the package into his home.

“But the police then monitored the package without a warrant via the parcel wire after the package was inside Lagrone’s home. The information obtained from that device, namely, that the package had been opened, could not have been observed from outside the home. As such, the receipt of that information via the parcel wire without a warrant violated Lagrone’s Fourth Amendment rights.”






 

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT