Desmond Hayes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1391
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- On April 3–4, 2015, two victims (Adams and Lee) were robbed at gunpoint after contacting a social‑media user named "Brasi LilAntfamila" to buy a handgun and a phone.
- Adams showed police the social‑media profile he believed matched the robber; the profile photo resembled Hayes.
- Hours later police stopped a car with Hayes as a passenger and found a .40 S&W handgun and marijuana; Hayes was arrested and a .40 round was recovered.
- A detective obtained a search warrant for Hayes’s social‑media account; the warrant returned the post advertising the gun, message logs between Adams and Hayes, and a photo uploaded near the time of the robbery.
- Hayes was charged with burglary, robbery, and criminal confinement; he moved to suppress the social‑media evidence, the motion was denied, and the evidence was admitted at trial without contemporaneous objection.
- A jury convicted Hayes on all counts; he appealed, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the fruits should have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of motion to suppress social‑media search results was an abuse of discretion because the warrant lacked probable cause | State: warrant supported by evidence (photo, birthday, message context) and evidence was properly admitted | Hayes: warrant lacked probable cause; fruits should be suppressed | Court: Waived review because no contemporaneous trial objection; Hayes did not allege fundamental error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing suppression denials after trial)
- Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2000) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve suppression claim for review)
- Trice v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1180 (Ind. 2002) (waiver rules for suppression issues)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (defines narrow scope of fundamental error for Fourth Amendment claims)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (discussion of privacy interests and third‑party doctrine in the digital age)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (deference afforded magistrate probable‑cause determinations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)