Robert Bowman, Tommy Maurry, and Jacob Murphy v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 349
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Two parcels shipped from Illinois to the same recipient in California were inspected by an Indianapolis detective; they were heavily taped, sent priority overnight, and addressed to the same recipient in a state law enforcement considers a source for controlled substances.
- A K-9 unit alerted to both parcels. Detective Thorla obtained warrants to open and search each parcel for "controlled substances, records of drug trafficking, and proceeds of drug trafficking."
- Searches recovered no drugs or drug paraphernalia; each parcel contained U.S. currency ($15,000 and $15,300), which law enforcement seized as alleged proceeds of drug trafficking.
- The State moved to transfer the seized currency to the United States under Indiana turnover statute; Appellants objected, arguing the seizure exceeded the warrant’s scope.
- Trial court ordered turnover, finding probable cause that the currency was proceeds of drug trafficking; the court of appeals reversed, directing return of the money to the appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the seizure of currency fell within the warrant’s authorization to seize "proceeds of drug trafficking" | State: facts (taped, priority mail, same destination, K-9 alerts) gave probable cause to treat currency as proceeds | Appellants: lack of drugs, records, or other evidence; K-9 alerts alone insufficient to show currency derived from drug trafficking | Reversed—seizure exceeded the warrant scope; currency not shown to be proceeds of drug trafficking |
| Whether turnover to federal government is proper when seizure was unlawful | State: turnover statute allows transfer if property seized under state law | Appellants: turnover improper because seizure unlawful under warrant | Court: turnover statute does not cure an unlawful seizure; illegal seizure requires reversal of turnover |
Key Cases Cited
- Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2008) (unlawful search or seizure requires reversal of turnover order)
- Pavey v. State, 764 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Fourth Amendment particularity requirement limits scope of search and seizure)
- Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 2003) (warrant need not list exact items but must describe items with sufficient specificity)