Victor Keeylen v. State of Indiana , 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 540 ( 2014 )

FOR PUBLICATION
Nov 06 2014, 8:53 am
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TODD ESS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
STEPHEN GERALD GRAY IAN MCLEAN
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
VICTOR KEEYLEN, )
)
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1308-CR-419
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT,
CRIMINAL DIVISION 20
The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge
Cause No. 49G20-1106-FA-40850
November 6, 2014
OPINION ON REHEARING – FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
Victor Keeylen (“Keeylen”) has filed a petition for rehearing of our opinion
affirming the Marion Superior Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We grant
Keeylen’s petition to clarify one factual issue, but otherwise affirm our opinion in all
respects.
In our original opinion, we stated that “Detective Graber submitted the probable
cause affidavit to the very same trial court and trial judge who had been authorizing the
GPS searches for over a year. It is unlikely that he thought that the omission of this
information would mislead the trial judge.” Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865, 877 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2014).
In his petition for rehearing, Keeylen notes that the judicial officer who issued the
search warrant did not issue all of the orders authorizing the GPS tracking. However, the
Commissioner who issued the warrant did issue the final order authorizing the GPS
tracking. Cf. Exhibits Vol., Defendant’s Ex. A1, p. 3, B11, p. 11.1 And the last four
authorization orders were issued by this very same court, Criminal Division 11.2 Id.,
Defendant’s Ex. B8 – B11.
The point we made in our original opinion remains valid: it is unlikely that
Detective Graber was attempting to mislead the judicial officer issuing the search warrant
by omitting information regarding the GPS tracking because the same judicial officer
1
This judicial officer appears to be the Commissioner for Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 11.
See id.
2
The previous seven authorization orders were issued by Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 20,
the court where Keeylen was tried and convicted. Id., Defendant’s Ex. B1 – B10.
2
who issued the search warrant had previously authorized the GPS tracking and was thus
well aware of the GPS tracking.
Aside from this factual clarification, we affirm our original opinion in all respects.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
3