78 N.E.3d 1109
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Feb 2012 police conducted two controlled buys of cocaine from Latorrea Ware and obtained a search warrant for her Elkhart apartment.
- Detective Timothy Freel (plainclothes, tactical vest) knocked, said he was "maintenance"; Ware saw his vest and attempted to close the door; officers then put their foot in the doorway, identified themselves as police, drew weapons, ordered occupants to the ground, and seized cocaine and buy money.
- Ware was convicted by jury of multiple drug offenses; on direct appeal she argued fundamental error in admitting evidence due to the manner of the entry, and the court rejected that claim (Ware I).
- In post-conviction proceedings Ware argued trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the evidence under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution (knock-and-announce requirement).
- The post-conviction court denied relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals considered whether counsel’s failure to move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress entry/evidence under Article 1, Section 11 (knock-and-announce) | Ware: officers failed to clearly announce they were police before entering; a suppression motion would have succeeded under Article 1, Section 11. | State: officers had substantial grounds (controlled buys, warrant, known prior felony, safety concerns); entry was reasonable under the totality of circumstances/exigent needs, so suppression would fail. | The court held suppression would not have succeeded because the totality of circumstances made the no-knock entry reasonable; therefore counsel was not ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dusch v. State, 259 Ind. 507, 289 N.E.2d 515 (recognizes knock-and-announce requirement but allows exceptions for exigent circumstances)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (reasonableness under Article 1, Section 11 is assessed by balancing concern/knowledge, intrusion, and law enforcement needs)
- Lacey v. State, 946 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 2011) (reiterates totality-of-the-circumstances reasonableness test for residential entries)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)