55 N.E.3d 380
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 29, 2014 Evansville police obtained a warrant to place a GPS device on a vehicle owned by Jeffrey Green’s mother and to monitor the vehicle for links to thefts in Vanderburgh County.
- GPS indicated the vehicle was moving into Clark County and circling business parking lots around midnight–1 a.m.; officers followed it.
- Officers observed a person enter the passenger side; later the About Face Salon’s front glass was found shattered, the cash register pried open, blue paint chips present, and $69 missing.
- Clarksville officers stopped the vehicle on I-65; Green was the driver and Joseph Sidener was the passenger. Glass shards fell from Sidener’s pant leg, a blue crowbar was found on the passenger-side floor, and $73 was found on Sidener’s person.
- Sidener was charged with Class C felony burglary and alleged to be an habitual offender; he moved to suppress GPS-derived evidence and objected to the State’s late amendment to the habitual-offender dates. The trial court denied suppression; jury convicted and court enhanced sentence on habitual-offender finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sidener) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Constitutionality of GPS monitoring | Warrant authorized placement and monitoring of GPS on target vehicle; evidence admissible | GPS monitoring exceeded warrant scope and violated rights under U.S. and Indiana Constitutions; alternatively Indiana Constitution affords broader protection | Court: Sidener lacks standing to challenge the search—he was a passenger with no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle; GPS monitoring admissible |
| 2) Sufficiency of evidence for burglary conviction | Circumstantial evidence (vehicle casing lots, salon broken into, paint chips, crowbar, glass on Sidener, cash on person) supports conviction | Evidence insufficient; prosecution failed to prove Sidener’s participation beyond reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could infer guilt from circumstantial evidence |
| 3) Amendment to habitual-offender information | Amendment corrected dates only; did not obscure the prior offenses; no prejudice to defendant | Amendment (day before trial) prejudiced defense by altering dates and limiting ability to contest prior convictions | Court: Amendment permissible under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5; dates-only correction did not prejudice Sidener; habitual-offender allegation stands |
| 4) (Procedural) Scope-of-warrant geographic limitation | Warrant authorized GPS on that vehicle; monitoring irrespective of county boundaries | Warrant limited to Vanderburgh County movements; tracking into Clark County exceeded scope | Court: Not reached on merits because Sidener lacked standing; tracking treated as part of the warranted search of the vehicle |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (installation and use of GPS device to monitor a vehicle’s movements constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (passengers lacking a reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle cannot challenge search)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (defendant must demonstrate reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (searches conducted pursuant to warrants may be invalidated if they exceed the warrant’s scope)
- Brooke v. State, 516 N.E.2d 9 (Ind. 1987) (correction of dates in habitual-offender allegations does not prejudice defendant if offenses remain identified)