Jack Hiatt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
27A04-1603-CR-477
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Police narcotics task force received a tip that Jack Hiatt was regularly manufacturing methamphetamine and recently moved to a yellow house near 8th and Branson.
- Officers observed Hiatt through an upstairs window apparently crushing something and pouring liquid from a red bottle into a funnel while a window fan ran; officers believed he was producing methamphetamine.
- Detective Zigler arrived in an unmarked car; his vehicle horn startled Hiatt, who came downstairs and was taken into custody; Hiatt yelled upstairs for someone to shut the door.
- After Hiatt’s arrest, Detective Zigler pushed open the apartment door, announced “police,” saw two women, ordered them out, and conducted a protective sweep during which he observed items consistent with methamphetamine production.
- Officers then obtained a telephonic search warrant based on observations before and during the sweep and collected evidence; Hiatt was charged and moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry and the subsequent warrant.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress; Hiatt was convicted of dealing in methamphetamine (Level 4), maintaining a common nuisance (Level 6), and possession of paraphernalia (Class C misdemeanor); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Hiatt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Detective Zigler’s warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances | Officers reasonably believed Hiatt was actively manufacturing methamphetamine and others remained inside, creating an objectively reasonable safety exigency to evacuate | No objective indicia of immediate danger (no screams, no smell of ether, no smoke/fire); sweep exceeded permissible conduct | Entry and protective sweep were reasonable under the exigent-circumstances exception; evidence admissible |
| Whether evidence seized pursuant to subsequent warrant is tainted fruit of an illegal entry | The warrant was supported by observations before and during the sweep; the initial entry was lawful so later warrant evidence is admissible | All evidence obtained after an allegedly unlawful entry must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree | Because the warrantless entry was lawful, the subsequent warrant and evidence were valid and admissible |
| Whether officers created the exigency to justify entry | Exigency arose from officers’ observations of dangerous meth lab activity before any police-caused disturbance | Police improperly created exigency (argument unsupported by record) | Court found exigent circumstances existed independent of police conduct |
| Whether state and federal constitutional standards differ in result here | State relies on totality-of-circumstances test but contends both federal and state analyses support reasonableness | Argues Indiana constitution provides greater protection and narrower standards | Both Fourth Amendment and Indiana Article 1, § 11 analyses supported reasonableness; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. 2006) (warrantless entry justified where officers detected ether odor and feared explosive risk to occupants)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent circumstances permit warrantless searches when immediate danger or destruction of evidence exists)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (objective-reasonableness test for warrantless entries; officer’s subjective motivation irrelevant)
- VanWinkle v. State, 764 N.E.2d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing meth labs’ dangers can justify immediate removal of occupants)
- Cudworth v. State, 818 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (state must show exigent circumstances would lead reasonable officer to believe immediate aid was needed)