Phillip D. Mundy and Merle Jost v. State of Indiana
21 N.E.3d 114
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Detectives sought Clinton Douthitt believed involved in handgun theft/murder; used BMV data to locate his last address on East Collins Lane, Bloomington.
- Detectives misidentified Stam’s property address (6225 East Collins Lane vs. Douthitt’s 6552 East Collins Lane) and traversed a gated private drive after removing a cable, despite clear “No Trespassing” signs and security measures.
- Detectives detected a marijuana odor near the garage; Jost, owner of Stam’s property, appeared and denied Douthitt’s presence; Stam refused consent to search.
- Detectives detained Mundy and Stam for safety and entered the mobile home without a warrant to secure Mundy and another occupant; Mundy corrected the detectives about the address.
- Based on odor of marijuana and plants observed, detectives obtained a search warrant that led to discovery of over 100 marijuana plants; Mundy and Jost were charged with conspiracy to deal marijuana and related offenses.
- Trial court denied suppression; on interlocutory appeal, Indiana Court of Appeals held police action violated Article 1, Section 11 and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police violated Article 1, Section 11 by entering Stam’s property without adequate justification. | State argues intrusion was warranted by pursuit of a suspect and odor evidence. | Mundy/Jost contend the gate, cable, signs, and no-trespassing notice signaled visitors were unwelcome; entry was unreasonable. | Yes; conduct was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 11. |
| Whether the subsequent warrant was tainted by an unlawful initial intrusion (fruit of the poisonous tree). | State maintains warrant supported by information arising from the investigation. | Defense asserts information derived from unlawful entry cannot provide probable cause. | Warrant based on tainted information; suppression affirmed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (standard for reasonableness under Indiana Constitution; totality of circumstances)
- Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 1994) (totality of circumstances approach; reasonableness balancing factors)
- Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2005) (considerations for reasonableness; intrusion and basis of search)
- Baxter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (no trespassing sign and entry on path; distinguishable from present case)
- Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2006) (distinguishes cases with credible tips; health/safety considerations; reasonableness analysis)
- Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applying to Article 1, Section 11)
- Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applied to Section 11)