Mohinder Singh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
41A05-1606-CR-1405
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- On Dec. 17, 2013, Singh, driving a Camaro, veered off the road and hit an obstruction after pulling into an apartment complex; he left the scene while his son remained. A witness (Durham) later identified Singh as the driver.
- Officer Kelly found Singh passed out at his apartment; Singh showed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, slurred speech, poor dexterity) and a portable breath test indicated alcohol.
- At the station Singh initially refused a certified Datamaster breath test, later attempted a test that printed "subject sample incomplete," and was otherwise uncooperative; Officer Kelly sought and obtained a telephonic search warrant for a blood draw.
- Hospital blood draw (after warrant) showed BAC 0.28%. Singh was charged with multiple DUI offenses; a jury convicted him on three counts and the court entered judgment on operating while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person (Class A misdemeanor).
- Singh moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing (1) Officer Kelly omitted/misrepresented facts to obtain the warrant (Fourth Amendment), and (2) Officer Kelly deviated from Datamaster procedures when the test was incomplete. Trial court denied suppression; Singh appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood-test evidence should be suppressed because the affiant omitted or misstated facts when seeking the warrant | Officer Kelly did not mislead; even if omissions occurred, probable cause existed | Singh: Officer Kelly deliberately omitted that Singh later attempted an inconclusive Datamaster test and misstated witness statements, undermining probable cause | Court: No abuse of discretion — no proof of intentional/reckless omission, and probable cause existed based on observations and PBT regardless of omissions |
| Whether deviation from Datamaster protocol (not repeating incomplete test) invalidates the warrant or blood results | Procedure deviation irrelevant; independent probable cause existed | Singh: Operator should have repeated the test per 260 IAC 2-4-1 and retested or obtained alternate test before seeking warrant | Court: Deviation did not eliminate probable cause; Singh was uncooperative and officer observations independently supported the warrant and admissibility |
| Whether post-arrest report discrepancy (Durham statements) undermines credibility of probable cause | Report inconsistency does not affect probable cause for earlier warrant | Singh: Officer lied in report about Durham helping Singh, calling officer credibility into question | Court: Discrepancy does not show deliberate falsehood relevant to probable cause and was subject to cross-examination at trial |
| Standard of review for admission of evidence after trial | State: admission reviewed for abuse of discretion | Singh: suppression should have been granted | Court: Reviewed for abuse of discretion and found none |
Key Cases Cited
- Scisney v. State, 55 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for admission of evidence after completed trial)
- Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865 (Ind. Ct. App.) (probable cause and requirements when challenging affidavit omissions for search warrant issuance)
- Kolish v. State, 949 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App.) (officer observations can establish fair probability that blood contains evidence of DUI)