Jewell Allen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 28 2018, 9:04 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Lyubov Gore
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jewell Allen, August 28, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1710-CR-2344
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Richard
Hagenmaier, Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G21-1701-F4-4074
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 1 of 8
[1] Jewell Allen appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Possession of Cocaine, 1
arguing that the trial court should have excluded all evidence obtained from the
search incident to his arrest. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] In early January 2017, Detective Gregory Kessie of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) coordinated two controlled buys with
a confidential informant. The informant completed two separate transactions
for crack cocaine with Allen under controlled circumstances. The buys took
place at Allen’s apartment on North Webster Avenue in Indianapolis. The
police monitored the buys through continuous surveillance outside of Allen’s
apartment but did not personally witness the transactions. Before and after each
controlled buy, the informant was thoroughly searched by the police.
[3] The informant reported back to the police immediately after the buys and
informed them that Allen had sold him crack cocaine. Additionally, the
informant provided a description of Allen, stated that Allen had a “dog and
possibly a look-out,” and on January 24, 2017, identified Allen from a photo
array as the one who had sold him the crack cocaine. St. Ex. 37.
[4] Based on this information, on January 27, 2017, Detective Kessie obtained and
executed a warrant to search Allen’s apartment and to arrest him. The warrant
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 2 of 8
listed Allen as a person to be seized, and the scope of the warrant was limited to
Allen’s home. St. Ex. 1. Allen was not in his apartment when the warrant was
executed. While inside the apartment, the police discovered a small bag of
marijuana, marijuana “roaches,” two digital scales laced with a substance later
discovered to be cocaine, and a firearm in plain view.
[5] Allen is a serious violent felon by virtue of his criminal history. As such, he is
not permitted to possess a firearm. Furthermore, at the time of the search, Allen
was on home detention, the terms of which explicitly prohibited him from
keeping a firearm in his home.
[6] Immediately after conducting a search of Allen’s apartment, several officers
went to search for Allen, eventually finding him on a public street a few miles
away from his apartment. Detective Kessie arrived and arrested Allen.
Detective Kessie also conducted a pat-down search of Allen and discovered
thirty-one individually wrapped bags filled with crack cocaine.
[7] After receiving his Miranda2 warnings, Allen spoke with the police. Allen
admitted to purchasing and selling crack cocaine and to using the scales at his
apartment for measuring controlled substances. Such statements, coupled with
the discovery of drugs on his person, were used as evidence in Allen’s criminal
trial.
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 3 of 8
[8] On January 31, 2017, the State charged Allen with Level 4 felony dealing in
cocaine, Level 5 felony possession of cocaine,3 and Class B misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. Before his trial, Allen moved to suppress evidence
obtained from the search incident to his arrest, claiming that the State had
violated his rights under the United States and Indiana Constitutions. The trial
court denied his motion.
[9] Allen’s jury trial took place on August 31, 2017. At the trial, Allen objected to
the admission of the evidence obtained from the search incident to his arrest.
The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
[10] The jury found Allen not guilty of Level 4 felony dealing in cocaine but found
him guilty of the lesser included offense of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine.
The jury also found Allen guilty of Class B misdemeanor possession of
marijuana.
[11] On September 18, 2017, the trial court sentenced Allen to 266 days for
possession of cocaine and to a concurrent term of 180 days for possession of
marijuana. Allen now appeals.
3
The State dismissed this charge at the outset of trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 4 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[12] Allen argues that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of
the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Allen does not assert
any violations of the Indiana Constitution on appeal.
[13] We are tasked with reviewing the trial court’s decision to admit evidence. We
will not reverse the trial court’s admission “unless the ‘trial court’s decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.’”
Reed v. Bethel, 2 N.E.3d 98, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Estate of Carter v.
Szymczak, 951 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)).
[14] Allen argues that his arrest was unlawful as it was not supported by probable
cause. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, the State must
obtain a warrant supported by probable cause to search and to arrest an
individual in her home. Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10, 15 (Ind. 2010).
[15] However, warrantless arrests conducted outside the home may be permissible.
Indiana Code section 35-33-1-1(a)(2) states that “[a] law enforcement officer
may arrest a person when the officer has . . . probable cause to believe the
person has committed or attempted to commit, or is committing or attempting
to commit, a felony.” Probable cause exists “when, at the time of the arrest, the
arresting officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances which would warrant
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 5 of 8
[a person] of reasonable caution to believe that the defendant committed the
criminal act in question.” Sears v. State, 667 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind. 1996).
[16] In this case, the police had probable cause to believe that Allen had engaged
and was engaging in the illegal sale of narcotics based on the two controlled
buys between Allen and the confidential informant. See Mills v. State, 177
Ind.4App. 432, 379 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (holding that police may
use information gleaned from a confidential informant’s controlled buys with a
suspect to attain probable cause). The buys were conducted in a wholly
controlled environment. The evidence demonstrates that both before and after
the two separate transactions, the police searched the confidential informant to
ensure he did not already have drugs or other paraphernalia on him.
Additionally, the informant wore recording devices to properly and accurately
document the transactions. After both transactions, the confidential informant
returned with drugs that he had obtained with money provided by the police for
the purpose of a controlled buy. Most importantly, for both transactions, the
police conducted close surveillance of Allen’s apartment to ensure that no one
else entered or exited the residence. Later, the confidential informant identified
Allen from a photo array as the dealer in the drug transactions. As such, the
controlled informant’s information provided the police with probable cause to
believe that Allen had committed a felony.
[17] Additionally, police officers discovered a firearm in plain view in Allen’s
apartment. Allen had previously been convicted of felony battery against a
public official, felony resisting law enforcement, and felony possession of a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 6 of 8
narcotic drug; police had knowledge of Allen’s criminal history before
searching his apartment. Allen’s criminal history classifies him as a serious
violent felon. As such, it is a felony for him to possess a firearm.4 While owning
a firearm is not per se evidence of felonious conduct, the police’s prior
knowledge of Allen’s criminal history coupled with the knowledge that Allen
was under a contractual duty not to own a firearm made it immediately
apparent that possession of the firearm was illegal.
[18] Allen argues that the initial warrant authorized police to arrest him, but only in
his home. According to Allen, the police need a new warrant and/or more
definite proof to arrest him outside of his home. We disagree. It is true that the
warrant was limited to a search and seizure of Allen in his home. However,
police also had probable cause to suspect Allen had committed or was
committing a felony, based on the controlled buys and the firearm discovered in
his apartment. This probable cause was all that police needed to arrest Allen—
no warrant was required. Therefore, this argument is unavailing.
[19] Because police officers had the requisite probable cause to arrest Allen without
a warrant, Allen’s arrest was lawful and valid under the Fourth Amendment.
As such, police were entitled to search him incident to that arrest. Therefore,
the trial court did not err by admitting this evidence.
4
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 7 of 8
[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 8 of 8