Janet M. Wright v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of
    FILED
    Aug 06 2012, 8:55 am
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.                     CLERK
    of the supreme court,
    court of appeals and
    tax court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    F. THOMAS SCHORNHORST                            GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Oxford, Mississippi                              Attorney General of Indiana
    JODI KATHRYN STEIN
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    JANET M. WRIGHT,                                 )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                      )
    )
    vs.                                )      No. 11A04-1109-CR-506
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                       )
    APPEAL FROM THE CLAY SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable J. Blaine Akers, Judge
    Cause No. 11D01-0906-FD-244
    August 6, 2012
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    BARTEAU, Senior Judge
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    The police went to Janet M. Wright’s house in search of Jesse West. Jesse was not
    there, but during their visit the police found marijuana and paraphernalia. The State
    charged Wright with multiple offenses, and she filed a motion to suppress all evidence
    discovered by the police. The trial court denied Wright’s motion in part, deferred ruling
    on the remainder of the motion, and granted Wright permission to pursue this
    interlocutory appeal. We affirm and remand.
    ISSUE
    Wright raises three issues, which we consolidate and restate as: whether the trial
    court erred by denying in part her motion to suppress.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On June 7, 2009, Clay County Sheriff’s Deputies James Switzer and Casey Judge
    went to Wright’s house in Coalmont, Clay County, Indiana. Wright lived with Scott
    West. The deputies were looking for Scott’s son, Jesse.
    A key question is why the deputies believed that Jesse might be found at Wright’s
    house. In early 2009, Deputy David Haddix of the Sullivan County Sheriff’s Department
    found a stolen van in rural Clay County near Coalmont, just east of the Sullivan County
    line, and had it towed to an impound lot. On or around June 1, 2009, the owner of the lot
    informed Haddix that Jesse’s identification had been found in the van. The identification
    indicated that Jesse lived in Coalmont, but the address provided on the identification was
    not the address of Wright’s house. Haddix consulted electronic records and determined
    that Jesse had an active misdemeanor arrest warrant from Greene County.
    2
    On June 4, 2009, Haddix called the Clay County Sheriff’s Department and talked
    with a dispatcher about Jesse. During the discussion, they determined that Jesse had a
    second active misdemeanor arrest warrant from another county. They also discussed a
    possibility that Jesse could be found at Scott’s house in Coalmont.             After this
    conversation, the dispatcher issued an e-mail to all Clay County Sheriff’s deputies. The
    e-mail advised that Jesse was wanted on two warrants and in connection with a stolen
    vehicle investigation. The e-mail further advised that Jesse “is supposed to be living with
    his dad, Scott West. Lives in [a] run down old house on Jason St[.] in Coalmont.” Depo.
    of Cindy Judd, Ex. 1.
    Switzer received the e-mail and examined the warrants. One of the warrants listed
    Wright’s address as one of Jesse’s residences. In addition, Switzer was acquainted with
    Nancy Fulford, the mother of two of Jesse’s children. One of the warrants against Jesse
    was for non-payment of child support to Fulford, and she had discussed with Switzer
    Jesse’s history of non-payment. She told him that Jesse would run from law enforcement
    if given a chance.
    Based on this information, Switzer and Judge went to Wright and Scott’s house as
    noted above. The house is on the south side of the street, and a driveway runs along the
    house’s west side. A porch and the front door are located on the west side of the house.
    Switzer walked up to the front door via the driveway and directed Judge to walk to the
    southwest corner of the house so that she would see if someone ran out of the back of the
    house into nearby woods. The south end of the porch was blocked by a grill, and a tall
    wooden lattice extended from the west side of the house into the backyard, so Judge
    3
    circled around the grill, a trash can and various other items and walked fifteen feet into
    the side yard where she could see past the lattice into the backyard. Judge did not enter
    the backyard and remained in view of Switzer.
    When Switzer walked up to the front door, he smelled marijuana. He knocked
    several times, but no one came to the door. As Switzer was knocking, Judge looked into
    the backyard and saw several milk jugs on the ground along the side of the house. The
    tops of the jugs had been cut off, and plants were growing inside them. Judge identified
    the plants as marijuana and notified Switzer. Switzer walked over to Judge, and they
    approached the jugs. Switzer confirmed that the plants were marijuana, and he radioed
    for additional officers to secure the property.
    Next, Scott arrived.    He allowed the officers to enter the house and retrieve
    Wright, who had been asleep inside up to this point. Jesse was not at the house. The
    police removed Scott and Wright from the house, and Scott signed a consent form
    granting permission to the police to search the house and outbuildings. During the
    subsequent search the police found additional marijuana plants in the house, along with
    paraphernalia.
    The State charged Wright with possession of marijuana, a Class D felony, 
    Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11
     (1983); maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony, 
    Ind. Code § 35-48-4-13
     (2001); and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, 
    Ind. Code § 35-48-4-8
    .3 (2003). Wright filed a motion to suppress all evidence discovered during
    the deputies’ visit to her property. The trial court denied Wright’s motion to suppress as
    to the marijuana that was found beside the house. The trial court deferred its ruling as to
    4
    all evidence found inside the house and outbuildings, determining that it had insufficient
    evidence to address that matter.     Wright requested leave to pursue an interlocutory
    appeal, and the trial court granted leave. Next, she asked this Court to accept her appeal,
    and we granted Wright’s motion.
    DISCUSSION AND DECISION
    The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is
    similar to other sufficiency issues. Pruitt v. State, 
    934 N.E.2d 767
    , 768 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2010), trans. denied. We determine whether substantial evidence of probative value
    exists to support the trial court’s ruling. 
    Id.
     We do not reweigh the evidence, and we
    consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, but we also
    consider the uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Shell v. State, 
    927 N.E.2d 413
    , 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
    Wright argues that the deputies’ discovery of the marijuana plants beside her
    house and the additional items inside her house and outbuildings was the result of a
    search that violated her federal and state constitutional protections against illegal search
    and seizure. We address each provision in turn.
    I. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
    The Fourth Amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secure in their
    persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
    be violated . . . .” This federal right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
    applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Duran v. State, 
    930 N.E.2d 10
    ,
    14 (Ind. 2010). Searches performed by government officials without warrants are per se
    5
    unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to a few specifically established and
    well-delineated exceptions. Holder v. State, 
    847 N.E.2d 930
    , 935 (Ind. 2006). When a
    search or seizure is conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving
    that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search or seizure.
    Boggs v. State, 
    928 N.E.2d 855
    , 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. The touchstone
    of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and reasonableness is measured in objective
    terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Rush v. State, 
    881 N.E.2d 46
    , 50
    (Ind. 2008).
    Here, Wright asserts that the deputies had no legitimate reason to enter her
    property and that Switzer was pursuing a personal mission based on his acquaintance
    with Fulford. However, the deputies had been informed that Jesse could be at Wright’s
    property, and there were pending misdemeanor arrest warrants for him. Furthermore,
    Jesse was wanted for questioning in connection with a vehicle theft. Switzer reviewed
    the warrants before going to Wright’s house, and one of them listed Wright’s address as
    one of Jesse’s residences. Switzer Depo. p. 24, Judd Depo. Ex. 3. In addition, Switzer’s
    discussions with Fulford provided evidence that Jesse had not addressed his delinquent
    child support payments. Therefore, the deputies had legitimate law enforcement reasons
    to enter Wright’s property. See Boggs, 
    928 N.E.2d at 864
     (holding that officers had a
    valid reason to enter Boggs’ property because they wanted him to come pick up his
    daughter and because they discovered there was a pending warrant for his arrest).
    Next, Wright contends that Judge engaged in an illegal search by entering the side
    yard of her house, from where Judge saw the marijuana in the backyard. A search arises
    6
    out of an intrusion by a governmental actor upon an area in which a person maintains a
    reasonable expectation of privacy. Dora v. State, 
    957 N.E.2d 1049
    , 1052 (Ind. Ct. App.
    2011), trans. denied. The land immediately surrounding and associated with a home, the
    curtilage, is also subject to the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home.
    Boggs, 
    928 N.E.2d at 863
    . When the police come onto private property to conduct an
    investigation or for some other legitimate purpose and restrict their movements to places
    visitors could be expected to go (such as walkways, driveways, and porches),
    observations made from such vantage points are not covered by the Fourth Amendment.
    Shultz v. State, 
    742 N.E.2d 961
    , 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.
    Here, the officers had a reasonable belief that Jesse could be found on the property
    and had been advised that he would flee from law enforcement if possible. When the
    deputies entered Wright’s property, Switzer approached the main door of the house and
    directed Judge to stand at the southwest corner of the house so that she would see if
    anyone ran out by another exit and entered the woods behind the house. Judge walked
    past the end of the driveway, fifteen feet into the side yard, where she could see the
    backyard. However, she did not enter the backyard, because she stood where she and
    Switzer could see each other. Judge may have intruded upon the curtilage of the home,
    but under these facts we cannot say that her attempt to spot anyone who might attempt to
    flee was a constitutionally impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment. See
    Lundquist v. State, 
    834 N.E.2d 1061
    , 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (determining that an
    officer’s intrusion into Lundquist’s backyard was permissible because the officer was
    searching for Lundquist, not contraband, and had reason to believe Lundquist would be
    7
    found on the property); see also Trimble v. State, 
    842 N.E.2d 798
    , 802 (Ind. 2006)
    (determining that an officer’s approach of a doghouse that was located three to five feet
    from Trimble’s driveway was permissible under the Fourth Amendment), clarified on
    reh’g, 
    848 N.E.2d 278
     (2006).
    Wright cites Divello v. State, 
    782 N.E.2d 433
     (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied,
    but that case is distinguishable. In that case, officers acting on a report that Divello was
    dealing marijuana at his residence went to his house and knocked at his front door and
    back door.      When they received no answer, the officers walked through Divello’s
    backyard to access another house that Divello owned, walked around that house, and
    knocked on all of the doors there. They saw a truck parked behind that house, examined
    it, and smelled marijuana coming from the corner of the house closest to the truck. After
    getting a search warrant, the officers discovered marijuana in the house, but a panel of
    this Court held that the marijuana had to be suppressed because the officers improperly
    walked through Divello’s backyard and the backyard of his other house, exceeding the
    area where visitors could reasonably be expected to go. See 
    id. at 439
    .
    By contrast, in this case Judge did not enter Wright’s backyard. Instead, she stood
    in a side yard near the driveway where she could look into the backyard but did not enter
    that area. Therefore, Divello is not controlling.1
    Next, Wright claims that even if it were permissible for Judge to stand where she
    could see into the backyard, Judge and Switzer violated the Fourth Amendment by
    1
    Wright further argues that the officers lacked exigent circumstances to view or enter her backyard. It is
    unnecessary to address this argument due to the manner in which we have resolved her Fourth
    Amendment claim.
    8
    approaching the marijuana plants once Judge identified them. The State contends that the
    deputies appropriately approached and seized the plants under the “plain view” doctrine.
    Indiana law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to seize incriminating
    evidence under the plain view doctrine if the following conditions are met: (1) police
    have a legal right to be at the place from which the evidence can be plainly viewed; (2)
    the incriminating character of the evidence is immediately apparent; and (3) police have a
    lawful right of access to the object itself. Eaton v. State, 
    889 N.E.2d 297
    , 301 (Ind.
    2008).
    Here, we have already determined that Judge did not violate the Fourth
    Amendment by standing where she could see into the backyard. Furthermore, Judge
    recognized the plants as marijuana, a controlled substance. Finally, the marijuana plants
    were not locked within a building or vehicle, but rather were sitting outside.        We
    conclude that the officers properly approached and seized the plants. See Redden v.
    State, 
    850 N.E.2d 451
    , 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (affirming officers’ discovery of
    materials used to manufacture methamphetamine where the materials were in plain view
    when the officers went to the back porch of Redden’s house), trans. denied.           We
    conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Wright’s motion to suppress with
    respect to the marijuana the deputies discovered in the backyard of Wright’s house.
    Wright argues that any other items found within her house and outbuildings must
    be suppressed because Scott’s consent to search was invalid. However, the trial court
    specifically declined to rule upon Wright’s motion to suppress with respect to items
    found within the house and outbuildings, noting: (1) the court could not determine
    9
    whether Scott’s consent could be “used for or against” Wright; and (2) no evidence was
    provided to the court as to whether Wright consented to the search. Appellant’s App. p.
    82. In the absence of a ruling by the trial court, there is nothing for us to review on this
    point. Wright may seek appellate review once the trial court issues a ruling on the
    portion of her motion to suppress pertaining to the search of the house and the
    outbuildings.
    II. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 11
    Wright claims that the officers’ entry upon her property, including Judge’s
    movement into a side yard where she could see the backyard, was illegal and
    unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution.       Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana
    Constitution provides, in relevant part: “The right of the people to be secure in their
    persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be
    violated . . . .” This provision tracks the language of the Fourth Amendment, but we
    conduct a separate analysis for alleged violations of Article 1, Section 11. Dora, 
    957 N.E.2d at 1055
    .
    The purpose of Article 1, Section 11 is to protect from unreasonable police activity
    those areas of life that Hoosiers regard as private. Mitchell v. State, 
    745 N.E.2d 775
    , 786
    (Ind. 2001). This provision must receive a liberal construction in its application to
    guarantee the people against unreasonable search and seizure. 
    Id.
     Our analysis focuses
    on whether the actions of the police officer are reasonable under the totality of the
    circumstances, rather than upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Dora, 
    957 N.E.2d at 1055
    . Reasonableness is considered in light of three factors: (1) the degree of
    10
    concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred; (2) the degree of intrusion
    the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities; and (3)
    the extent of law enforcement needs. 
    Id.
    In this case, the deputies had a high degree of knowledge that a violation had
    occurred because Switzer had received an e-mail from a dispatcher regarding Jesse and
    had personally reviewed two misdemeanor arrest warrants, one of which listed Wright’s
    address as one of Jesse’s residences. Furthermore, Switzer knew from talking with
    Fulford that Jesse had failed to fulfill his court-ordered child support obligations, so he
    had independent evidence that the basis for Jesse’s arrest warrant for misdemeanor failure
    to pay child support was unresolved. Finally, the deputies were aware that Jesse was a
    suspect in a vehicle theft. Thus, the deputies had reasons to look for Jesse and had reason
    to believe that he might be on Wright’s property.
    In addition, the degree of intrusion was low. Switzer and Judge approached the
    house via the driveway, and Switzer walked up to the front door while he directed Judge
    to position herself so that she could see around the corner of the house. Although Judge
    walked fifteen feet into a side yard, she did not enter the backyard. The degree of
    intrusion is closer to Lundquist, 
    834 N.E.2d at 1069
    , where an officer entered a backyard,
    than to Divello, 
    782 N.E.2d at 435-36
    , where the officers walked through a backyard, into
    the backyard of a second house owned by Divello, and around the second house’s
    curtilage while searching for Divello.
    Finally, Judge’s entry into the side yard was justified by law enforcement needs.
    Fulford had told Switzer that Jesse would run from the police if given a chance.
    11
    Furthermore, Switzer thought it was necessary to ensure that no one surreptitiously
    approached him or Judge. Balancing these factors, we conclude that the officers’ entry
    onto the property, including Judge’s movement into the side yard where she saw the
    marijuana, was not an unreasonable search in violation of Article 1, Section 11. See
    Redden, 
    850 N.E.2d at 461
     (determining that the officers’ entry onto the property to talk
    with the property owner, which led to the officers’ discovery of materials related to drug
    manufacturing on the porch, was reasonable under Article 1, Section 11).
    Wright also asks this Court to consider the validity of Scott’s consent to search the
    house and outbuildings under the Indiana Constitution.         Given that the trial court
    expressly delayed a ruling upon this portion of Wright’s motion to suppress, we may not
    consider that issue at this time.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand
    for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Affirmed and remanded.
    MAY, J., and DARDEN, Sr.J., concur.
    12