Tiras D. Johnson v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 409
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Johnson pled guilty to two sets of offenses: (1) Class D felony assisting a criminal with a 24‑month sentence (12 months home detention, 12 months probation) and (2) Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor paraphernalia with a suspended 24‑month sentence to run consecutively.
- While on probation, officers surveilling a duplex on reports of drug activity knocked; Johnson answered, smelled of burnt marijuana, said he didn’t live there (Brooks did), and refused entry.
- Officers handcuffed and Mirandized Johnson, heard movement inside the duplex, and performed a warrantless entry to check for other persons and potential evidence destruction; they observed marijuana in plain view on a living‑room table.
- After waiting for Brooks and then obtaining a warrant, officers executed the warrant and found a large amount of marijuana in the kitchen and in a backpack Johnson admitted was his.
- Johnson moved to suppress evidence seized during the initial warrantless entry; the trial court denied suppression (finding lack of standing and/or exigent circumstances) and revoked probation.
- On appeal the State alternatively argued any error was harmless because the affidavit (excluding the plain‑view observation) still supplied probable cause for the warrant; the court affirmed on that ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson had standing/reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge the warrantless search of Brooks’s duplex | State: Johnson lacked standing because he did not live at Brooks’s residence | Johnson: Frequent visitor; had expectation of privacy in backpack and residence | Court did not decide standing; instead resolved case on probable cause for warrant (see below) |
| Whether the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances | State: Officers feared another person might be present who could destroy evidence or pose danger | Johnson: Entry/search violated Fourth Amendment and Indiana Const. art. 1 § 11 | Court upheld warrant’s validity on independent probable‑cause grounds; did not need to resolve exigency question |
| Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause without the plain‑view observation | State: Even removing plain‑view evidence, affidavit contained sufficient facts (odor of burnt marijuana, surveillance, Johnson’s appearance/statements) | Johnson: Evidence from warrantless entry poisoned the warrant affidavit; suppression required | Held: Affidavit (odors, surveillance, Johnson’s demeanor and statements) provided a fair probability of finding evidence; warrant valid without plain‑view observation |
| Whether admission of evidence required suppression as "fruit of the poisonous tree" | Johnson: Evidence discovered because of unlawful entry; derivative evidence must be suppressed | State: Any potential error was harmless because probable cause supported warrant independently | Held: Because the warrant was supported by independent probable cause, evidence properly admitted and revocation affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rader v. State, 932 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (probable cause is a practical, common‑sense determination by the magistrate)
- Walker v. State, 829 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (probable cause exists when a reasonably prudent person would believe evidence will be found)
- Shipman, 987 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (doubtful cases involving warrants resolved in favor of upholding the warrant)
- Hanna v. State, 726 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree bars evidence directly or derivatively obtained from unlawful searches)
- State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006) (standard of review: give deference to the issuing magistrate; appellate review focuses on whether reasonable inferences support probable cause)