Matthew B. Bakewell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A05-1603-CR-705
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- June 6, 2014: an anonymous Drug Unit tip said meth was being manufactured in Day Lite Inn room 124; officers went to investigate.
- Manager identified renter as Lonna Gillison; officers knocked, announced themselves, and Gillison invited them into the room.
- Officers observed a small bud of marijuana on a nightstand; after asking, both Gillison and Bakewell consented to a search and allowed an officer to look under the bed.
- Officer found baggies and a coffee filter with a white substance under the mattress; Pirtle warnings were then given and a warrant was later obtained to complete the search, revealing methamphetamine manufacturing items.
- Bakewell admitted manufacturing meth the prior night; he was charged, convicted of dealing in methamphetamine (Class B felony) and possession of marijuana (Class A misdemeanor), and appealed the admission of evidence obtained without a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of knock-and-talk entry | Entry was consensual; knock-and-talk is permissible without arrest or warrant | Knock-and-talk was coercive; a reasonable person would not feel free to refuse entry | Entry was voluntary: officers announced, no weapons/touching/forceful tone; Gillison consented to entry |
| Validity of consent to search / Pirtle warnings | Consent to search was voluntary; not in custody so Pirtle warnings not required | Baker was effectively in custody once officers were in the room and marijuana was visible, so Pirtle warnings were required before consent | No custody: no restraints, no incriminating questioning, brief encounter, only two officers; consent to search was voluntary and Pirtle did not attach |
| Probable cause for subsequent warrant (reliability of anonymous tip) | Affidavit supported probable cause because officer’s independent observations (marijuana, meth under mattress) corroborated the anonymous tip | Anonymous tip alone was insufficient; reliability not established | Magistrate had substantial basis: totality of circumstances (officer’s corroboration of tip) supported probable cause and issuance of warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of the circumstances)
- Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. 1975) (custodial persons asked to consent to search are entitled to counsel before consenting)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause for warrants judged by totality of the circumstances)
- Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. 1997) (informant reliability and corroboration principles in probable-cause analysis)
- Peel v. State, 868 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (knock-and-talk and custody analysis where officers questioned and then sought consent after admissions)
- Hayes v. State, 794 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (knock-and-talk does not per se violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Redden v. State, 850 N.E.2d 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (reasonable-person test for whether knock-and-talk rendered occupants not free to refuse)