State v. Allen

187 N.E.3d 221

STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.Sarah A. ALLEN, Appellee-Defendant.

Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-2009

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED April 8, 2022

Publication Ordered May 5, 2022

Attorneys for Appellant: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Evan M. Comer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee: Joel C. Wieneke, Brooklyn, Indiana

Riley, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Plaintiff, the State of Indiana (State), appeals the trial court's Order granting Appellee-Defendant, Sarah Allen's (Allen), motion to suppress.

[2] We reverse.

ISSUES

[3] The State presents this court with two issues, which we restate as:

(1) Whether Allen lacked standing to challenge the search of her husband's person and his clothing; and

(2) Whether an officer's omission of certain statements from his search warrant affidavit for Allen's home invalidated the search warrant.

[4] In addition, Allen presents an argument for upholding the trial court's grant of her motion to suppress, which we restate as: Whether the search warrant for her home was supported by probable cause.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[5] On October 10, 2020, Officer Jarrett Tedrow (Officer Tedrow) and other officers of the Bedford Police Department (BPD) went to the Hillside Apartments in 1900 block of 14^th Street in Bedford, Indiana, to investigate a report of a male who was publicly exposing his buttocks. Officer Tedrow, whose body camera recorded the investigation, spoke with the complainant, who identified her neighbor, David Allen (David), as the male who had repeatedly exposed his buttocks to her. The complainant indicated to the officers which apartment in the complex was David's. The officers proceeded to the reported address, Apartment 14, where they knocked. When a woman answered the door, Officer Tedrow asked if David lived there, and the woman offered to get David for him.

[6] After a delay, David came to the door, stepped outside without being asked, and shut the door behind him. As Officer Tedrow explained that he was investigating a report of a male exposing himself, David swayed back and forth and remained in constant motion. Within a few moments of encountering David, Officer Tedrow asked David if he had "taken anything today as far as alcohol or drugs" because he seemed to be intoxicated. (Exh. A at 9:40). As David responded that he had only had cold and cough medicine, the lit cigarette he held in his mouth dropped to the ground. Officer Tedrow questioned David concerning the neighbor's report. David confirmed that he lived in Apartment 14 and that his niece, his niece's children, his niece's boyfriend, some friends, and his wife, Allen,¹ were inside. David denied exposing himself to his neighbor, after which Officer Tedrow noted out loud that David knew details of the report without having been told. Another officer knocked on the door of Apartment 14 again and asked all the adults to exit.

[7] Officer Tedrow asked David if he had any weapons, whereupon David raised his arms and Officer Tedrow patted down the pockets of David's shorts. No weapons or other contraband was found. Officer Tedrow observed out loud that, although he did not know how David usually acted, David appeared to him to be more "f**ked up" than a person would normally be having taken just cold and cough medicine. (Exh. A at 12:25). David then stated that he had taken two "full glasses" of Robitussin. (Exh. A at 13:09). As another officer spoke with the other adults who had exited the home, Officer Tedrow stood with David, who spoke at length without being prompted. After several minutes, another officer observed a bulge in David's sock, reached into David's sock, and found a baggie of suspected heroin.

[8] David was taken into custody, and without being prompted, David stated the following:

David: You got me ... I'm not resisting ... I'm not fighting you in the least bit ... If there's anything here is found, it's all mine.

Unidentified Officer: It was in your sock.

David: I know. I'm just saying if anything is found in this house, it belongs to me.

Officer Tedrow: We are going to my car.

Unidentified Officer: Is there anything else inside the house?

David: Let them go ... I don't know, I didn't even know that was there [expletive] but I'll take it ... [to bystanders] Hey call mom and tell her what's up. [to officers] I didn't know that was there, I would have told you that was there. I've been asleep. I just woke up.

(Exh. A at 22:15 to 23:13). A search of David's pockets prior his being transported yielded a pill which was suspected to be a Schedule II controlled substance.

[9] Subsequent to David's arrest, Officer Tedrow applied for a warrant to search Apartment 14 for evidence of heroin possession and dealing. In his affidavit filed in support of the search warrant, Officer Tedrow related that David's statement " ‘if there's anything here that's found, it's all mine’ " had "led officers to believe that there are other controlled substances inside the residence." (Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 102). Officer Tedrow did not include in his affidavit David's statement "I don't know, I didn't even know that was there [expletive] but I'll take it," made in response to an officer's enquiry if there was anything else in the home. (Exh. A at 22:15 to 23:13).

[10] Later that day the search warrant was approved and executed on Apartment 14. The probable cause affidavit filed with the charges in the instant case detailed that officers found in Apartment 14, among other things, what were suspected to be heroin, Buprenorphine, methamphetamine, Gabapentin, syringes, a glass pipe for ingesting methamphetamine, and, in a wallet containing what they suspected to be Allen's driver's license, two bindles of suspected heroin. Allen was taken into custody and transported to the BPD. According to the probable cause affidavit, Allen advised that she had items inside her vaginal canal and eventually produced several plastic bags and a bindle containing suspected heroin from her person.

[11] On October 13, 2020, the State filed an Information, charging Allen with Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug (heroin), Level 4 felony possession of a narcotic drug (heroin), Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance (Buprenorphine), Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Level 6 felony legend drug possession (Gabapentin), and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On February 1, 2021, Allen filed a motion to suppress which she amended on April 27, 2021. Allen argued that any evidence procured against her must be suppressed because it was the fruit of the poisonous tree of an illegal search of David. Allen also argued that probable cause did not support the search warrant because Officer Tedrow had misled the search warrant judge by omitting from his search warrant affidavit any reference to David's statement that he did not know whether there were other drugs in the home. In its response, the State argued, among other things, that Allen did not have standing under either the federal or Indiana Constitutions to challenge the officer's search of David.

[12] On June 29, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Allen's suppression motion. David was Allen's only witness. David provided limited testimony, essentially only establishing a foundation for the admission of Officer Tedrow's body camera footage, which was the only exhibit admitted at the hearing. Allen did not argue during the hearing that she had standing to challenge the search of David's person due to being David's spouse. At the close of the hearing, the trial court made a preliminary ruling that Allen had standing to challenge the officer's search of David, but, after further argument by the parties, the trial court expressly took all issues under advisement. On August 17, 2021, the trial court issued a summary written order granting Allen's motion without entering findings of fact or conclusions thereon. On September 28, 2021, in response to a motion by the State, the trial court dismissed the charges against Allen without prejudice.

[13] The State now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

[14] The State appeals pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-4-2(a)(5) following the trial court's grant of Allen's motion to suppress which effectively precluded any further prosecution of the State's case. In reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to suppress, we must determine whether the record contains substantial evidence of probative value supporting the trial court's decision. State v. Renzulli , 958 N.E.2d 1143, 1146 (Ind. 2011). We will not reweigh the evidence and will consider any conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. Where, as here, the State appeals from a negative judgment, to obtain reversal, it must show that the trial court's suppression ruling was contrary to law. Id. While we normally defer to the trial court's factual findings made in support of the grant of a motion to suppress, here the trial court entered no findings of fact to which we must defer. See State v. Wroe , 16 N.E.3d 462, 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (also observing that, in reviewing a summary suppression order, this court must rely on the arguments of the parties and determine if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's ruling), trans. denied.

II. Standing

[15] One of the bases for Allen's suppression motion was to challenge the constitutionality of the search of David that led to the search warrant for Apartment 14 and culminated in the discovery of contraband for which she was criminally charged. The State argues, as it did below, that Allen had no right under either the federal or Indiana Constitutions to challenge the legality of the search of David. We agree with the State.

[16] Both our federal and Indiana...