Chiszar v. State, 936 N.E.2d 816

Chiszar was convicted by bench trial of two counts of Voyeurism, three counts of Possession of Child Pornography, plus several misdemeanors following a domestic incident involving L.G. and a video camera.
L.G. awoke to Chiszar recording her; she confronted him, the camera was hidden, and a struggle ensued in which she was physically harmed.
Deputies obtained consent to search the garage; they discovered marijuana, paraphernalia, and then the video camera and tape(s) tied to the alleged voyeurism and assault.
A warrant was later issued after an affidavit alleging voyeurism and past similar conduct; the warrant yielded additional tapes and a computer with child pornography.
Chiszar moved to suppress, but the trial court denied; the cases were consolidated for a single bench trial and he was convicted on all counts.
This appeal challenges vagueness of the voyeurism statute, admission of seized evidence, probable cause for the warrant, and sufficiency of the evidence for two convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vagueness of voyeurism statute	Chiszar argues the statute is vague and overbroad.	Chiszar contends ordinary people cannot understand the line between moral and criminal peeping.	Not void for vagueness; statute adequately informs proscribed conduct.
Admissibility of evidence from warrantless search	Evidence obtained during a warrantless entry should be suppressed.	Knock-and-talk with consent to search garage was lawful; later search within scope was proper.	No abuse of discretion; consented search and resulting evidence admissible.
Probable cause for subsequent search warrant	Affidavit lacked sufficient basis to support probable cause for a warrant.	Affidavit reasonably established credibility of the informant and corroborating evidence.	Magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; warrant supported.
Sufficiency of evidence for voyeurism and battery	Evidence does not prove peeping into a room with consent lacking, or that battery occurred.	L.G.'s lack of consent and Chiszar's actions support both convictions.	Sufficient evidence for voyeurism and for battery; other convictions not challenged.

Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness and due process standards for criminal statutes)
Downey, 476 N.E.2d 121 (Ind.1985) (line between trivial and substantial conduct in statute interpretation)
Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 299 (Ind.1998) (ordinary intelligence suffices for notice per vagueness review)
Lombardo v. State, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind.2000) (statutory vagueness analysis and notice to ordinary people)
Rhinehardt v. State, 477 N.E.2d 89 (Ind.1985) (defining proscribed conduct with reasonable warning to individuals)
Healthscript, Inc. v. State, 770 N.E.2d 810 (Ind.2002) (due process notice and interpretive standards in vagueness analysis)
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S.1983) (probable cause standard in warrant determinations)
Lynch v. City of Chicago, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S.1999) (Morales principle cited in vagueness and enforcement concerns)
Newby v. State, 701 N.E.2d 593 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (informant credibility considerations in probable cause)
Esquero v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind.1994) (probable cause standard and totality of the circumstances)
Newsom, 402 F.3d 780 (7th Cir.2005) (timeliness of information in child pornography investigations)