Lacey v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 351
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Lacey and co-defendants were charged with firearm and marijuana offenses following a police search of Lacey's Fort Wayne residence conducted under a search warrant.
- The warrant was executed without knocking and announcing, and the trial court denied suppression but allowed interlocutory appeal.
- The Court of Appeals held probable cause was sufficient but suppressed the evidence due to no-knock execution violating the Indiana Constitution.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address whether no-knock execution requires prior judicial authorization when exigent circumstances are known at the time of the warrant application.
- The majority held that Article 1, Section 11 does not require prior judicial authorization for no-knock entry if exigent circumstances exist, evaluated under totality of the circumstances at execution.
- The Court emphasized that better practice is to present known exigent facts to a magistrate and obtain express authorization for no-knock entry when possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the warrant | State maintained probable cause existed for the warrant | Lacey argued the warrant was not supported by probable cause | Probable cause established |
| No-knock entry and Indiana Constitution | State argued no-knock entry justified by exigent circumstances at execution | Lacey contended prior judicial authorization was required when facts known at application justify no-knock | No pre-authorization required; reasonableness decided by totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dusch, 259 Ind. 507 (1972) (knock-and-announce principle recognized under Indiana Constitution)
- Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 1994) (reasonableness under totality of circumstances governs searches)
- Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302 (Ind. 1984) (exigent circumstances may justify no-knock entries)
- Beer v. State, 885 N.E.2d 33 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (no-knock warranted by danger or inhibiting investigation)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonableness of searches)
- Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 2010) (application of totality-of-circumstances approach to residential entries)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) (pre-authorization by magistrate not always required; exigent factors matter)