Frederico A. Conn v. State of Indiana
89 N.E.3d 1093
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 1, 2015 police responded to a late‑night noise/gunfire complaint at Laurel Conservation Club; by arrival the shooting had stopped. A neighbor reported gunshots and possible illegal killing of animals.
- Club access was blocked by a closed/locked gate; officers climbed over or went around the gate to reach the property.
- Officers observed Frederico Conn move behind the club building; after questioning Conn admitted he had hidden a handgun behind the building.
- Officers recovered a .22 handgun, two change purses, ammunition, and, inside the purses, drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine.
- Conn was charged, objected at trial to admission of the seized evidence as obtained by an illegal search; the trial court admitted the evidence, convicted Conn, and sentenced him.
- On appeal the Indiana Court of Appeals evaluated the search under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and reversed, holding the warrantless entry over the locked gate was unreasonable and the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issues
| Issue | Conn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were officers' entry and search of private club reasonable under Article 1, §11? | Entry/search was unreasonable because officers jumped a locked gate and there were no exigent circumstances. | Entry was lawful to investigate reported ongoing shooting and public‑safety concerns. | Entry was unreasonable under totality of circumstances; search violated Article 1, §11. Evidence excluded. |
| Degree of officers' suspicion when they arrived | Minimal: shooting had ceased, no evidence of poaching or other crime. | Tip of criminal activity justified concern. | Court: suspicion was negligible—no evidence of crime when officers arrived. |
| Degree of intrusion (privacy interest) | High: closed/locked gate signaled exclusion; jumping gate was substantial intrusion. | Low: routine investigation of reported shooting. | Court: high intrusion—Indiana precedents treat bypassing barriers as significant intrusion. |
| Standing to challenge search under Article 1, §11 | Conn could challenge because State did not timely contest his standing at trial. | State contends Conn lacked standing (no ownership, membership, or possessory interest in seized property). | Majority: State waived standing defense by not raising it at trial; reached merits and found violation. Dissent: Conn lacked standing and issue was preserved—would have affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (sets three‑factor totality test for reasonableness under Article 1, §11)
- Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998 (Ind. 2014) (jumping locked gate/fence is a high intrusion in Article 1, §11 analysis)
- Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 1996) (standing under Article 1, §11 requires ownership, control, possession, or interest in premises or seized property)
- Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (evidence obtained from illegal search is fruit of the poisonous tree and excluded)