Kenneth M. Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
44A03-1603-CR-503
Ind. Ct. App.Feb 14, 2017Background
- On August 7, 2014, Noble County probation officers (assisted by local police) went to locate and conduct a probation search of Kenneth M. Jordan after a failed drug test and missed appointments; they ultimately arrived at his LaGrange County residence (8375 E 800 S).
- Officers encountered signs of meth use/manufacture, temporary restrained Jordan in handcuffs for officer safety, and found a bubbling one‑pot methamphetamine vessel in the garage plus numerous precursors, equipment, and a plastic bag later lab‑tested as 0.54 grams of methamphetamine.
- Jordan volunteered that there was a meth lab in the garage and directed officers to it; officers then contacted the Indiana State Police to process the scene and disposed of hazardous materials.
- The State charged Jordan with dealing in methamphetamine (Level 4), possession of methamphetamine (Level 5), possession of precursors (Level 6), maintaining a common nuisance (Level 6), and possession of paraphernalia (Class A misdemeanor).
- At a December 17, 2015 bench trial the court admitted the probation order under the business‑records exception, admitted the lab certificate, denied suppression of the search under Article 1, § 11 (Indiana Constitution), and admitted Jordan’s voluntary statements; the court convicted on Counts I–IV and the paraphernalia lesser‑included offense and entered concurrent/consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of probation record under business‑records exception | Exhibit is kept in regular course of probation department business and Wheeler could vouch for its custody/regularity | Wheeler lacked firsthand knowledge of the specific intake entry; exhibit is hearsay | Admitted: witness had functional understanding; foundation satisfied under Evid. R. 803(6) |
| Admissibility / chain of custody of lab analysis (methamphetamine) | Officer transferred seized bag to lab; certificate described sealed bag; presumption of regularity supports admissibility | Gap in chain (officer could not recall exact seizure location; no proof bag was sealed before lab) | Admitted: reasonable assurances shown; any gaps go to weight, not admissibility |
| Search under Article I, § 11 (Indiana) | Jordan’s probation condition waived search rights allowing warrantless, suspicionless probation searches | Even if on probation, search still required reasonable suspicion or Jordan didn’t reside at premises | Denied: condition of probation authorized warrantless/suspicionless searches per Vanderkolk; Jordan had standing and search was reasonable |
| Miranda (statements while handcuffed) | Statements were voluntary and spontaneous, not the product of custodial interrogation | Handcuffed custody required Miranda warnings before any incriminating statements | Statements admissible: although custody existed, there was no interrogation—statements were volunteered |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | Physical evidence (one‑pot vessel, precursors, equipment), lab result (0.54 g meth), and Jordan’s directions supported dealing, possession, precursors, nuisance, paraphernalia | Challenges to residency, weight attribution, and overlap of offenses (double jeopardy) | Sufficient evidence: convictions sustained on all counts; no double jeopardy under the actual‑evidence test |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stahl v. State, 686 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. 1997) (reliability rationale for business‑records exception)
- Troxell v. State, 778 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. 2002) (chain‑of‑custody principles and presumption of regularity in evidence handling)
- State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. 2015) (probationers who consent to clear, unambiguous search conditions may be subject to warrantless, suspicionless searches)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (Article I, § 11 totality‑of‑circumstances balance for search reasonableness)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (Indiana actual‑evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (clarification of the actual‑evidence double jeopardy test)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda custodial‑interrogation rule)