Omid Petrelli v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1704-MI-741
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- A parcel addressed to Omid Petrelli was sniffed by a narcotics canine at a shipping facility; the dog alerted to the odor of a controlled substance.
- Detective Gary Hadden obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit and searched the package, finding $19,740 in cash.
- The State seized the cash as proceeds of narcotics trafficking and money laundering and moved under Ind. Code § 35-33-5-5(j) to transfer the funds to the United States.
- Petrelli challenged the transfer, arguing the search warrant affidavit was defective because the affidavit referenced a repealed perjury statute, rendering the oath/affirmation insufficient.
- The trial court granted the State’s transfer motion; Petrelli appealed, arguing the defective oath made the search unlawful and the transfer improper.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the search-lawfulness issue de novo and considered whether the affidavit satisfied constitutional and statutory oath/affirmation requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant affidavit contained a sufficient oath/affirmation to support issuance of the warrant | Petrelli: the affidavit’s reference to a repealed perjury statute renders the oath ineffective | State: affiant swore/affirmed under penalty of perjury in two places; the outdated citation is mere surplusage | The court held the affidavit contained an adequate oath; the outdated statute citation was harmless surplusage |
| Whether an unlawful search occurred such that the transfer order must be reversed | Petrelli: defective oath made the search unlawful, so turnover must be reversed | State: search was lawful because oath requirement satisfied; no other defects alleged | The court held the search was lawful and affirmed the transfer order |
Key Cases Cited
- Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2008) (search-lawfulness controls turnover/transfer of property)
- Wallace v. State, 157 N.E. 657 (Ind. 1927) (oath/affirmation must convey an obligation to tell the truth)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (value of oath and penalties for perjury in assuring truthful statements)
- Frink v. State, 568 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1991) (technical defects in oath/affirmation do not require reversal when purpose of oath fulfilled)