James E. Jarman v. State of Indiana
114 N.E.3d 911
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- In March 2017 Tippecanoe County Community Corrections officers went to James E. Jarman’s residence after an anonymous tip; a safety sweep located his ex-wife in the attic.
- Officers handcuffed and pat-down searched Jarman and found a knotted baggie of white powder; Jarman provided a key to a cabinet where officers then found methamphetamine, synthetic drug packets, paraphernalia, and other indicia of dealing.
- Jarman was charged with possession and dealing of methamphetamine, dealing/possession of a synthetic drug/lookalike, and possession of paraphernalia; he moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search.
- Jarman had signed a Community Corrections form waiving Fourth Amendment rights and consenting to searches “without a warrant and without probable cause.”
- The trial court denied suppression, convicted Jarman (merging counts where appropriate), and sentenced him; he appealed arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment because the waiver did not unambiguously authorize suspicionless searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jarman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of Jarman’s person was constitutional | Waiver meant Jarman consented to searches without probable cause and thus officers could search without suspicion; signing the waiver effectively authorized searches | The waiver’s language “without probable cause” does not unambiguously permit searches without any suspicion; reasonable suspicion (or some individualized suspicion) is still required unless waiver expressly allows suspicionless searches | Reversed: waiver did not unambiguously authorize suspicionless searches, so the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. 2015) (suspicionless searches of community-corrections participants permissible only when conditions unambiguously authorize them)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (lesser standards than probable cause may justify searches depending on governmental and private interests)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parole statute authorizing searches “with or without cause” supports suspicionless searches)
- State v. Schlechty, 926 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (discusses standards of suspicion; referenced by State regarding relative stringency of suspicion standards)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search-incident-to-arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
- Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013) (appellate review of constitutionality of searches is de novo)