Richard Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1601-CR-18
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- On May 13, 2014, police responded to a reported disturbance at the home where Richard Jones lived with his elderly grandmother, son, and uncle; a visitor, Shamane Roach, accused Jones of stealing her vehicle.
- Officers spoke with Roach in the driveway; Jones remained inside and refused to come outside. Jones allegedly pushed his grandmother when she attempted to exit.
- Officers told Jones he was under arrest for battery; Jones shut and locked the door. After backup arrived, the grandmother told officers they could enter the home if they would not hurt Jones.
- Officers entered without a warrant, found Jones holding his son on a bed, secured the child, and attempted to place Jones under arrest; Jones resisted, required use of mace and leg shackles, and was charged with multiple offenses.
- Jones filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the warrantless entry; the trial court denied it. At the second trial Jones did not object at trial on constitutional grounds to admission of the challenged evidence; he was convicted of resisting law enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry and arrest in Jones’s home violated the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Art. 1, § 11 | State: evidence from the entry was admissible because entry was justified (consent or exigency argued below) | Jones: entry/arrest violated federal and state search-and-seizure protections; evidence should be suppressed | Court: Jones waived appellate review by failing to make a contemporaneous constitutional objection at trial; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 841 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (state and federal search-and-seizure rights compared)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- Swanson v. State, 730 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (state bears burden to show warrant exception)
- Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 1999) (state-constitutional search reasonableness test)
- Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77 (Ind. 1995) (liberal application of state constitutional protections)
- Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission after trial)
- Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review defers to trial court on factual findings)
- Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998 (Ind. 2014) (constitutionality of search reviewed de novo)
- Jackson v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2000) (failure to contemporaneously object waives appellate review)
- Wagner v. State, 474 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 1985) (motion to suppress overruled at trial requires contemporaneous objection when evidence offered)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (error in admitting suppressed evidence not per se fundamental)
- Hart v. State, 578 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. 1991) (cannot raise a different basis on appeal than trial objection)
- Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 2012) (ineffective-assistance post-conviction relief may remedy trial counsel’s failure to object)
- Pemberton v. State, 560 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. 1990) (failure to make contemporaneous objection can constitute ineffective assistance)