Antyon Buford v. State of Indiana, 40 N.E.3d 911

Police received an anonymous "drug tip" via the Elkhart County Prosecutor's Office that Stewart was selling drugs from a residence rented by Buford; the tip reported frequent short vehicle stops at the house.
Officers went to the residence, smelled burnt marijuana outside, observed a stronger odor inside, and saw a small amount of marijuana "shake" on a dining-room table.
Buford and Stewart were present; both ran when officers knocked, were detained, and officers determined there was an outstanding warrant for Buford.
An officer left to obtain a search warrant; the affidavit relied on the anonymous tip plus the officers' observations (presence of occupants, marijuana odor, and marijuana on the table) and asserted probable cause to search for evidence of drug "dealing."
The warrant issued and the search uncovered a firearm, ammunition, cocaine residue/rock, scales, and drug paraphernalia; Buford was charged and convicted of dealing cocaine (Class A), unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Class B), and maintaining a common nuisance (Class D).
On appeal, Buford argued the probable-cause affidavit included uncorroborated hearsay from an anonymous source and false/misleading statements; the court reversed, holding the affidavit failed to corroborate the anonymous tip that drugs were being "dealt" from the residence.

Issue	State's Argument	Buford's Argument	Held
Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause where the affidavit relied on an anonymous tip alleging drug "dealing"	Probable cause was supported by officers’ on-scene observations (odor, occupants, marijuana) and the tip was not determinative	The affidavit relied on uncorroborated anonymous hearsay and lacked facts establishing the tip’s reliability or corroboration for "dealing"	Reversed: affidavit failed to corroborate the anonymous tip that there was drug dealing; insufficient probable cause for the warrant
Whether appellant waived the challenge to hearsay-based probable cause by arguing only falsity/misleading statements at trial	Asserted waiver because motion focused on falsity and not on lack of probable cause based on hearsay	Trial counsel specifically challenged the affidavit’s reliance on an anonymous tip and lack of corroboration; issue preserved	Court found the hearsay/corroboration argument was presented at the suppression hearing and not waived

Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. 1997) (an anonymous tip not corroborated by the totality of circumstances cannot support probable cause for a warrant)
Newby v. State, 701 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (uncorroborated hearsay from an unknown source cannot alone support a search-warrant probable-cause finding)
Bradley v. State, 609 N.E.2d 420 (Ind. 1993) (verification of peripheral facts does not establish the truth of an anonymous informant’s core allegation)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause for a search warrant is assessed by the totality-of-the-circumstances test)
White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. 2002) (issues not raised at trial generally waived on appeal)