Nick McIlquham v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 506

Police responded to a report of an unsupervised toddler wandering near an apartment complex at night; defendant (child’s father) met officers and agreed to let them check the apartment for the child’s safety.
Defendant led officers to the apartment, opened the door, then moved quickly to the kitchen and furtively stuffed items into his pockets; officers conducted a pat-down and observed marijuana, scales, and baggies in plain view.
Defendant was Mirandized and arrested; mother (the leaseholder) arrived ~30–60 minutes later, was advised of Pirtle warnings, and signed a written consent to search the apartment.
A subsequent search of the bedroom produced more marijuana and a loaded .22 revolver in a gun case; defendant admitted ownership of the contraband and gun.
Defendant was charged with multiple offenses, pleaded guilty to neglect and marijuana possession, went to bench trial on firearm and paraphernalia counts, moved to suppress evidence as tainted by an unlawful search/invalid consent, and was convicted on firearm and paraphernalia counts.
The Court of Appeals upheld the search under a community‑caretaking rationale; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed based on the voluntariness and scope of defendant’s and mother’s consents (declining to reach community‑caretaking).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant validly consented to officers entering the apartment	Consent was voluntary; defendant agreed and opened the door, so entry/search lawful	Consent was coerced because child was effectively in police custody and police said CPS might be contacted	Held: Defendant’s verbal and non‑verbal consent was voluntary; furtive movements justified pat‑down and discovery in plain view
Whether the pat‑down and plain‑view seizure were lawful	Pat‑down reasonable for officer safety given defendant’s furtive behavior; items in plain view admissible	Pat‑down exceeded scope of welfare check and was pretextual	Held: Pat‑down lawful for officer safety; plain‑view contraband admissible
Whether mother’s consent to search the apartment was voluntary	Mother was advised of rights (Pirtle warnings) and signed written consent; she appeared cooperative and not coerced	Mother consented under duress because child’s custody was implicated	Held: Mother’s consent was voluntary; statements about notifying child‑welfare were not coercive
Whether the gun was beyond the scope of mother’s consent (consent limited to drugs)	A reasonable person consenting to a search for drugs/contraband would expect containers (e.g., gun case) to be searched	Finding a gun in a gun case exceeded the object of the search	Held: Search of the gun case was within objectively reasonable scope for contraband search; gun admissible

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent measured from totality of circumstances)
Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975) (custodial subjects are entitled to counsel before consenting)
Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. 2008) (state bears burden to prove consent was voluntary)
Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2003) (scope of consent and limits on consent obtained by coercion)
Daniel v. State, 582 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. 1991) (officers may state they will seek a warrant without necessarily invalidating consent)
United States v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 2004) (nonverbal actions like opening door can manifest consent to enter)
United States v. Walls, 225 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2000) (consent may be manifested by conduct such as stepping back to allow entry)
Smith v. State, 713 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (scope of consent defined by the object of the search; containers within scope if reasonably related to search objective)