Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments for a case where a Kokomo man is appealing the legality of a police search of a U-Haul truck that resulted in his January convictions on felony drug possession and auto theft charges.
The hearing will be held Nov. 20 at 11 a.m. at Indiana Wesleyan University’s Philippe Performing Arts Center in Marion.
According to court documents, police acting on a tip about two U-Haul trucks, one allegedly stolen, and quantities of methamphetamine at a residence, went to a Kokomo street and located two U-Haul trucks, one parked in a driveway and the other on the street.
Through an open door of the U-Haul parked in the driveway, police observed a handgun. Around this time, Brian Petro exited the house, ran to the U-Haul in the street, and reached behind a seat.
Petro was eventually handcuffed and, during a pat-down search for weapons, officers found methamphetamine and marijuana.
Police subsequently obtained and executed a search warrant for the trucks and residence and located methamphetamine and a handgun where Petro had been reaching in the U-Haul.
Following denial of Petro’s motion to suppress, a jury trial was held at which the trial court admitted the seized items into evidence over Petro’s objection.
Petro was convicted of Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony auto theft.
On appeal, Petro alleged that the officers engaged in an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution when they walked up the driveway and looked into the U-Haul parked there and that all evidence seized thereafter should have been excluded.
In his appellant’s brief, Petro argued that Kokomo police proceeded, without consent or a warrant, onto the driveway where the U-Haul was parked.
“The action of the Officers proceeding onto the property and looking into the white truck in the driveway was an unreasonable search and the entire incident that unfolded and the evidence gathered as a result should have been excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree,” the appellant’s brief stated.
In its appellee’s brief, the state argued the officers’ entry onto the driveway was not a search that triggered the Fourth Amendment’s protections because Petro had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway, and officers did not trespass by intruding into an area that was impliedly open to the public.
“Under the Indiana Constitution, officers had knowledge of a crime being committed based on a tip that was partially corroborated. The intrusion caused by the officers walking on a driveway was minimal. Law enforcement need was high because they were investigating a significant crime,” the state’s brief stated.
The scheduled panelists are Chief Judge Robert Altice, Judge Dana Kenworthy, and Judge Stephen Scheele.
The case is Brian Keith Petro v State of Indiana, 25A-CR-683.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.