135 N.E.3d 962
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Harper was on parole (after a firearm conviction) under a standard parole agreement that authorized reasonable searches of his person and property by supervising officers upon reasonable cause.
- Parole Officer Jellison received an anonymous tip Harper was dealing drugs and traveling to New York; at a parole meeting Harper tested positive for cocaine and admitted unauthorized out-of-state travel.
- Jellison conducted parole searches of Harper’s person and home, found a storage-unit receipt in Harper’s name, and went with Harper to the unit, unlocking it with Harper’s key.
- In the storage unit Jellison observed in plain view a handgun and a large bag of white substance; he stopped and called IMPD; officers then obtained a warrant and later seized large quantities of cocaine and other contraband.
- Harper was charged with multiple drug and firearms felonies, moved to suppress the evidence (arguing the storage-unit search was investigatory, not a parole search), and moved for discharge under Criminal Rule 4(C).
- The trial court granted suppression but denied discharge; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the suppression ruling (finding reasonable suspicion supported the parole search) and affirmed denial of discharge, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial warrantless search of storage unit required a warrant | Parole condition authorized searches; officers had reasonable suspicion from tip, positive drug test, and admission, so parole search lawful | Search exceeded parole-search scope and was an investigatory search to gather evidence of new crimes; therefore warrant required and later warrant search was fruit of poisonous tree | Reversed trial court: totality of circumstances (parole condition + reasonable suspicion) justified warrantless parole search under Knights balancing; evidence not suppressed |
| Whether trial court erred denying discharge under Ind. Crim. R. 4(C) | One-year clock began when charges filed or when defendant was held under the criminal charge; official record shows arrest/warrant was served Aug 16, 2017, so no Rule 4(C) violation | Clock should have begun June 30, 2016 (while Harper was incarcerated on parole violation), making delay >1 year and requiring discharge | Affirmed denial: Rule 4(C) time runs from filing or actual arrest under the criminal charge; record showed Harper was not held on this case until warrant service in Aug 2017 |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (recognizes special-needs context for warrantless probation/parole searches)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (balancing test: reasonable suspicion suffices for searches of probationers subject to search conditions)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parolees have diminished privacy interests; searches permissible under lessened standards)
- State v. Schlechty, 926 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (describes two-approach framework for parole/probation search analysis)
- State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775 (Ind. 2015) (parole and probation search principles are substantially similar)
- Rust v. State, 792 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses tolling and restart of Rule 4(C) clock where defendant is incarcerated elsewhere)