Ricardo Ortiz v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A03-1606-CR-1458
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- Undercover officer and a cooperating source (CS) conducted three buys: Dec 5 (controlled buy from Rafael Dejesus), Dec 10 and Dec 13 (Dejesus led them to a house in Elkhart and returned with cocaine on both occasions).
- After the Dec 13 buy, an affidavit recounted the buys and the officer’s observations and sought a search warrant for the house Dejesus had visited; a magistrate issued the warrant that night.
- Officers executed the warrant around 10:25 p.m., forced entry, and found Ricardo Ortiz in the master bedroom; in the bedroom/bathroom they found ~14g cocaine, ~42g marijuana, digital scales, plastic baggies, boxes of sandwich bags, clothing, $735 (including $100 buy money), and mail/documents bearing Ortiz’s name and the house address.
- Ortiz moved to suppress the evidence arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause because it relied on Dejesus without establishing his reliability; trial court denied suppression.
- Ortiz did not appear at the scheduled trial and was tried in absentia, convicted of possession of cocaine (with intent to deliver) and possession of marijuana, and later (after arrest years later) sentenced to 28 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ortiz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / probable cause | Affidavit including undercover officer’s personal observations and corroborating surveillance provided a substantial basis for probable cause to search the house. | Affidavit relied on Dejesus’s statements without showing his reliability; Dejesus could have carried drugs on his person, so affidavit was insufficient. | Warrant valid: officer’s direct observations of Dejesus approaching/returning from the house, surveillance corroboration, and prior controlled buy supported fair probability contraband was at the house. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of possession | Evidence of Ortiz’s possessory interest in the house plus additional circumstances (proximity of drugs, scales/baggies, mail with his name, buy money) supported constructive possession and intent to control. | Ortiz lacked proven possessory interest; State failed to prove he knew about or controlled the drugs. | Evidence sufficient: Ortiz’s mail at the address, presence in master bedroom at night, drugs in dresser and bathroom connected to bedroom, drug paraphernalia, and buy money warranted conviction for constructive possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. 1997) (probable cause in warrant review judged by whether affidavit provides a substantial basis to infer a fair probability contraband will be found)
- Mills v. State, 379 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. 1978) (personal observation of a controlled buy can supply probable cause)
- Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302 (Ind. 1984) (proof of possessory interest in premises can show capability to control contraband)
- Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. 1999) (elements of constructive possession: intent and capability; nonexclusive control requires additional circumstances showing knowledge)
- Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. 1984) (examples of circumstances indicating knowledge in constructive possession cases)
- Wilson v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: consider probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict)