ILNews

SCOTUS urged to not take Indiana case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General's Office wants the nation's top jurists to reject a Hoosier case posing Fourth Amendment questions about police searches, valid search warrants, and probable cause.

In a 33-page brief filed late Monday, the AG's office contends the Indiana Supreme Court was correct in deciding last summer that police can seize evidence not identified in an initial search warrant when those items of criminality are found on the scene of a valid search dictated by the first warrant.

The brief comes in response to a January petition for certiorari in Willie Eaton v. State of Indiana, No. 08-8153, which stems from a state decision issued June 30, 2008. That ruling in Eaton v. State, 889 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. 2008), affirmed a judgment from Wayne Circuit Judge David Kolger and held Eaton's convictions for cocaine dealing and marijuana possession should stand because an initial search warrant had sufficient probable cause.

Dating to May 2005, the case involves an Indiana State Police move to stop an interstate drug-trafficking conspiracy. Eaton went to a Richmond muffler store to meet with Edgar Gonzalez, who earlier in the day police stopped for speeding and caught with cocaine. A trooper rode with Gonzalez to the destination and planted a recording device in the vehicle, and then waited to enter the muffler store until after Eaton arrived. Police obtained a warrant to search Eaton's home based on a statement from the officer who said drug traffickers commonly kept money and records regarding drug trades on cell phones, computers, and other items at home.

During the search for records, police saw several items in the home - including cocaine - that caused them to get another warrant allowing for police to seize those additional items and eventually leading to the convictions.

On direct appeal, four justices concluded that a police officer may seize evidence not identified in a search warrant "when he inadvertently discovers items of readily apparent criminality while rightfully occupying a particular location." But Justice Robert D. Rucker dissented, fearing that the majority's logic in approving that search warrant would invite more government searches and that could violate both the U.S. and Indiana constitutions.

Hoping to overturn that decision, Eaton's pro bono counsel F. Thomas Schornhorst, a professor emeritus at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington, filed a petition Jan. 12 asking the high court to accept jurisdiction in a case posing important and recurring Fourth Amendment questions on broadly worded search warrants.

In its response brief, the attorney general's office poses the question: "When police arrest a suspected drug trafficker at the scene of a four-kilo transaction, is it reasonable for them to infer, for purposes of obtaining a search warrant, that the suspect likely conceals documentary and other evidence of his drug trade at 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT