State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk
32 N.E.3d 775
| Ind. | 2015Background
- In Dec. 2012 community corrections officers conducted a routine, warrantless compliance search of Jordan Sullivan’s home while Sullivan was on home detention; officers had no suspicion of illegal activity at entry.
- Officers discovered drugs and paraphernalia in common areas and in private bedrooms, including those of Brishen Vanderkolk, who was living at the residence; Vanderkolk was charged with drug-related offenses.
- Vanderkolk moved to suppress evidence from the search as violating the Fourth Amendment; the trial court suppressed items from Vanderkolk’s private bedroom but denied suppression of items from common areas.
- The State appealed, arguing the search was lawful either (a) because Sullivan’s community corrections status authorized suspicionless entry (relying on Samson), or (b) because Sullivan consented in advance via his program handbook; the State also contended the entry justified a protective sweep.
- The handbook’s search clause stated participants waived search-and-seizure rights but also said officers may enter “at any time without prior notice to search upon probable cause,” creating an express condition of probable cause in the written consent.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held that probation/community‑corrections participants may validly consent in advance to suspicionless searches, but Sullivan’s waiver in this case was conditioned on probable cause, so the search was unlawful and all evidence must be suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vanderkolk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether community corrections status alone authorizes suspicionless entry and search | Sullivan’s home detention status (like parole) allows suspicionless compliance searches (Samson) | Status alone does not; reasonable suspicion required for probation/community corrections | Status alone does not authorize suspicionless search; Samson does not extend to authorize searches based solely on status |
| Whether Sullivan’s written conditions constituted valid advance consent to suspicionless searches | Handbook waived Fourth Amendment rights and authorized searches without suspicion | Handbook only consented to searches upon probable cause; thus no advance consent to suspicionless searches | The handbook’s language conditioned searches on probable cause, so it did not unambiguously authorize suspicionless searches |
| Whether search was justified as a protective sweep after lawful entry | Once inside lawfully, officers could do a protective sweep and seize incriminating items in plain view | Entry was unlawful, so protective-sweep rationale fails | Because entry was unlawful, protective-sweep and plain‑view justifications are irrelevant |
| Whether Samson’s rule for parolees applies to probation/community corrections participants | Samson’s allowance for suspicionless searches should apply to probation/community corrections if clearly stated in conditions | Samson is limited to parole and probation requires reasonable suspicion | Court held Samson’s reasoning applies if probationer/community corrections participant unambiguously consents to suspicionless searches; here consent was conditional on probable cause, so Samson did not validate the search |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolee’s advance consent to searches permits suspicionless searches under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probation search condition can justify warrantless search when clearly expressed and supported by reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Schlechty, 926 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (warrantless probation-related search complies with the Fourth Amendment when supported by a valid search term and reasonable suspicion)