Timmie Bradley v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 996

Indianapolis police, investigating anonymous tip and observed short-term foot traffic, surveilled a home suspected of drug dealing.
Officer observed Bryant Beatty knock and be let into the residence; minutes later officers performed a knock-and-talk; Beatty (who had just knocked) answered the door and consented to police entry.
Officers smelled burnt marijuana upon entry, attempted to contact a person who retreated into a back room, then performed a warrantless protective sweep and searched rooms, drawers, and a couch; they found drugs, scales, and a handgun.
Timmie Bradley arrived separately, was detained and searched, and police recovered additional cocaine and cash from his person and clothing.
Bradley moved to suppress all evidence from the warrantless entry and subsequent searches; the trial court admitted most evidence, leading to convictions; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to review whether Beatty had apparent authority to consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Beatty had apparent authority to consent to entry	Beatty’s answering the door and prior presence at the home supported a reasonable belief he could consent	Beatty was merely a guest; State failed to prove officers reasonably believed he had authority	No; officers lacked a reasonable belief Beatty had authority, so consent was invalid
Whether warrantless protective sweep was lawful	Protective sweep was justified for officer safety after seeing person retreating	Sweep was derivative of unlawful entry and thus invalid	Not reached on merits; invalid because initial entry lacked consent/warrant
Admissibility of evidence seized after entry	Evidence was admissible as fruit of valid consent and lawful sweep	Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful entry and search	Suppress all evidence seized from the illegal entry and subsequent searches
Burden to show consent exception to warrant	State must prove a warrant exception existed, including authority to consent	Bradley argues State failed to meet its burden to prove apparent authority	State failed to meet burden; warrantless entry unjustified

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to states)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary; State bears burden to prove exception)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (warrantless searches of homes presumptively unreasonable)
Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2005) (actual authority requires mutual use or joint access/control)
Primus v. State, 813 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (apparent authority judged by facts available to officer)
Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 1998) (State bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement)
Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013) (constitutional questions of searches reviewed de novo)
Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2013) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires suppression of evidence from unlawful searches)