Joseph E. Waldron v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
35A02-1701-CR-122
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- Child (six-year-old) reported being tased by her father, Joseph E. Waldron; police obtained a warrant to search the home for a taser, surveillance cameras (inside/outside), and electronic devices used to store video from the cameras.
- Officers executed the warrant and found a DVR connected to cameras plus a taser, a computer tower, a laptop, an internal hard drive, cell phones, and a digital camera; they could not tell which devices stored DVR footage.
- Police seized the DVR, its hard drive, the laptop, the computer tower, and the internal hard drive; forensic exam revealed child solicitation and child pornography on those devices.
- Waldron moved to suppress, arguing the warrant only authorized seizure of devices physically connected to the cameras (i.e., the DVR); trial court denied the motion.
- Waldron pursued interlocutory appeal challenging whether the warrant’s scope authorized seizure of electronic devices capable of storing camera recordings but not physically connected to the cameras.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrant authorized seizure/search of electronic devices capable of storing surveillance video though not physically connected to cameras | State: Warrant authorized seizure of devices “used to store video recordings from the surveillance cameras”; officers could seize/search devices capable of storing such footage | Waldron: Warrant limited seizure to devices physically connected to cameras (i.e., only the DVR) | Court: Warrant language encompassed devices capable of storing camera recordings; officers properly seized and searched the devices |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonser v. State, 843 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for reviewing denial of suppression motion)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (substantial-evidence review for suppression rulings)
- Widduck v. State, 861 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (construing conflicting evidence in suppression appeals)
- Harper v. State, 922 N.E.2d 75 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (constitutional search/seizure determinations reviewed de novo)
- Crabtree v. State, 762 N.E.2d 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (same standard guidance)
- Woodson v. State, 960 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (applied standards for suppression review)
- Green v. State, 676 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (warrant particularity requirement protects against unreasonable searches)
- Pavey v. State, 764 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (items to be seized must be described with some specificity but need not be exact)
- Phillips v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 1987) (no exact-description requirement for warrants)
- Lee v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (warrants invalid if they leave executing officers undue discretion)
- Ogburn v. State, 53 N.E.3d 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (seizure exceeded warrant where items seized were not of same character as those described)