Brian Bradley v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 95
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bradley, third-floor resident, is defendant in a drug-dealing case following searches of the building.
- Krekler, jailed for marijuana possession, identified a source nickname 'Shrek' later identified as Brian.
- Police obtained a second-floor warrant for Carroll and Hite’s apartment based on the hearsay from Krekler and others.
- Carroll and Hite stated they bought marijuana from Brian/Shrek, who allegedly lived on the building’s third floor.
- Police obtained a second warrant for Brian’s third-floor apartment and found marijuana, cash, weapons, and other items.
- At trial, Krekler recanted direct purchases from Brian; the judge admitted evidence from Brian’s apartment over objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for Carroll/Hite warrant | Bradley argues first warrant lacked probable cause. | Carroll/Hite contend the state preserved standing and evidence supports probable cause. | Warrant valid; no standing to Bradley; probable cause found via totality of circumstances. |
| Probable cause for Brian's third-floor warrant | Bradley contends affidavit relied on unreliable hearsay and misidentification. | State asserts corroboration among informants and totality supports probable cause. | Probable cause supported by totality; evidence admissible; good-faith exception not necessary to reach result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment standing is personal; cannot vindicate rights of others)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (privacy expectations must be personal and reasonable)
- Allen v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1092 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (Indiana standing parallels Fourth Amendment; depends on privacy interest)
- State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006) (probable cause; totality of the circumstances governs warrant validity)
- Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. 1992) (focus on totality and magistrate’s reasonable inference)
- Casady v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (restricts reviewing scope to issuing magistrate evidence)
- Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 1997) (reliability of informants and corroboration factors for hearsay)
- Newby v. State, 701 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (hearsay reliability and corroboration requirements in affidavits)
- Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (probable cause affidavit must include material facts casting doubt)
- Hensley v. State, 778 N.E.2d 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (linking informant’s knowledge to suspect; credibility concerns)
- Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77 (Ind. 1995) (privacy interests endangered when constitutional rights circumvented)