Jennifer Jones and Jamal Jones v. State of Indiana
54 N.E.3d 1033
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Oct. 2014, BUPD officers stopped Jennifer Jones late at night; they smelled marijuana, found contraband, and arrested her. Her three children (ages 6, 9, 12) were at home alone.
- After arrest, Jennifer expressed concern about her children; officers attempted phone contact and knocked at the home but received no response.
- Officers (BUPD and IMPD) went to the residence ~1:45 a.m.; unable to rouse the children initially, an officer unlocked and entered the home to locate them.
- Inside, officers found strong marijuana odor, drug paraphernalia in plain view, and, in the basement, marijuana plants and grow equipment; the children were located and removed to grandparents.
- A warrant was later obtained and executed; the Joneses were charged with various drug and neglect offenses and moved to suppress the evidence seized during the warrantless entry.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; the court of appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | State/BUPD Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances (welfare check of children) | Entry not justified because at least one child (age 12) could babysit; no objectively articulable danger to support exigency | Officers reasonably believed unattended minors in the middle of the night required immediate aid; silence to knocks and mother’s concern created exigency | Entry was justified under the emergency-aid/exigent-circumstances exception |
| Whether a protective sweep (basement) was permissible | Sweep occurred after children were located and exigency had ended; evidence from sweep should be suppressed | Sweep was part of efforts to locate children and ensure safety; officers reasonably entered basement while children not yet found | Entry into basement permissible because children had not yet been located and exigency continued |
| Whether BUPD had jurisdiction to conduct the welfare check | BUPD exceeded jurisdiction under Trustees Resolution and statute | Trustees Resolution extended BUPD jurisdiction for public-safety emergencies and providing aid; officers acted within that scope | BUPD action fell within its extended jurisdiction; alternatively officers acted in good faith such that suppression not warranted |
| Whether suppression is required given any statutory/jurisdictional error | Suppression appropriate for unlawful search/overreach | Suppression is disfavored where officers acted in good faith and reasonably believed action lawful | Suppression denied; exclusionary remedy not warranted under facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (officers need not have ironclad proof of life‑threatening injury to invoke emergency‑aid exception)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (limits and justification for protective sweeps incident to arrest)
- U.S. v. Bradley, 321 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.) (warrantless entry justified to locate an unattended child in middle of night)
- State v. Crabb, 835 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App.) (exigent circumstances upheld where officers investigated hazardous odor and discovered a child)
- Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930 (Ind.) (similar recognition that officers’ investigation of hazardous odor supported entry to render aid)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (exigent‑circumstances standard and deference to trial‑court factfinding)
- Montgomery v. State, 940 N.E.2d 374 (silence to knocks can reasonably be interpreted as inability to respond, supporting emergency entry)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (emergency aid/need to protect life can justify what would otherwise be unlawful searches)