Danielle Kelly v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 904
Ind.2013Background
- On Sept. 15, 2010, Carolyn Goodwin told Fortville police she had arranged to buy cocaine from a man she knew; she said the man was en route to her home but gave no name or vehicle description.
- Officers waited at Goodwin’s house; a car arrived with Lamont Day driving and Danielle Kelly in the passenger seat. Officers ordered both out at gunpoint, handcuffed them, and conducted an inventory/search of the vehicle.
- During the search officers found cocaine concealed inside a hollowed screwdriver. Chief Kiphart interviewed Kelly; part of the encounter was recorded. Kiphart asked Miranda-type questions, but some questioning occurred before a formal Miranda warning.
- Kelly was charged with dealing and possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park. She moved to suppress the vehicle evidence and her statements as obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- The trial court suppressed only pre-warning statements but denied suppression of the vehicle evidence and post-warning statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kelly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ stop and conduct amounted to a Terry stop or a custodial arrest requiring probable cause | The encounter was an investigative stop and officers acted on informant’s tip corroborated by arrival of suspect | The show-of-force, handcuffing, search, and refusal to let her leave converted the encounter to an arrest that required probable cause | The totality (guns drawn, handcuffs, search, refusal to release) constituted an arrest; officers lacked probable cause — seizure/search violated Fourth Amendment (suppress vehicle evidence) |
| Whether pre- and post-Miranda statements were admissible where questioning began before warnings | Pre-warning statements should be suppressed; post-warning statements are admissible under Elstad if warnings cured the prior failure | Pre-warning statements and subsequent post-warning statements (given after a “question-first” interrogation) are inadmissible under Seibert because post-warning statements repeated and referenced earlier admissions | Court suppressed pre-warning statements and also held post-warning statements inadmissible under Seibert because warnings were given midstream and officers repeatedly referenced pre-warning admissions |
| Whether informant Goodwin’s tip provided probable cause to arrest or search the vehicle | Tipster could be prosecuted for false statement or participation, and arrival of suspect corroborated tip | Tip was untested: Goodwin was an unknown, unreliable informant; no prior accuracy or basis-of-knowledge, and no independent corroboration that drugs were present | Tip produced reasonable suspicion but not probable cause; arrest/search unsupported by probable cause |
| Remedy and scope of suppression | Evidence and statements admissible because officers acted in good faith and Miranda warnings followed later | Illegally obtained evidence/statements must be excluded to deter misconduct | Suppress vehicle evidence obtained from warrantless arrest and post-warning statements obtained via question-first interrogation; reverse denial of suppression and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality) (disapproves purposeful "question-first, warn-later" interrogation where midstream warnings fail to cure prior unwarned interrogation)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (post-warning confession can be admissible when prior unwarned statement was uncoerced and warnings are effective)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings about right to remain silent and counsel)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (factors for determining whether confession is product of illegal arrest: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of misconduct)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (confession obtained by exploitation of illegal arrest may be inadmissible)
- DiTommaso v. State, 566 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 1991) (probable cause may rest on reliable informant information)
- Spillers v. State, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006) (factors for evaluating informant reliability and effect of false-reporting exposure)