Toddrick Ogburn v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 464

Background

Police responded to a reported burglary at an apartment; they entered initially (door ajar, broken window) and smelled burnt marijuana; apartment appeared ransacked and unoccupied.
A detective later re-entered (without exigent circumstances) to photograph and zoomed into a large opaque vase, revealing two baggies that appeared to contain drugs.
Officers then obtained a warrant for the residence citing the odor of burnt marijuana and the suspected narcotics in the vase; during the search they seized pills, white powder, scales, phones, paperwork bearing Ogburn’s name, and a key fob.
The key fob activated a nearby 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe; a K-9 alerted on the Tahoe, officers obtained a warrant, and inside found two bundles of marijuana (>20 lbs. each) and receipts linking Ogburn to the vehicle.
Trial court suppressed evidence observed during the second warrantless entry (the vase contents) but denied suppression of evidence from the Tahoe; Ogburn was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
Court of Appeals reversed: it held the second entry and the seizure of the key fob were Fourth Amendment violations, and the marijuana seized from the Tahoe was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ogburn)	Held
Whether evidence leading to the Tahoe was admissible despite a second warrantless entry into the residence	Warrant was supported by probable cause independent of the improperly observed vase contents; odor of marijuana justified the residence warrant	Second entry to photograph vase was unconstitutional; evidence first observed then (and derivative evidence) must be suppressed	Court: Second entry was not justified; odor alone did not furnish substantial basis for the broad warrant; seizure of key fob exceeded warrant scope; evidence leading to Tahoe was unlawfully obtained — admission was abuse of discretion; conviction reversed
Whether Ogburn is judicially estopped from challenging the vehicle search because he denied possessory interest at trial	Ogburn disclaimed possession at trial; he should be estopped from asserting standing on appeal	Estoppel improper: jury rejected his trial denial (convicted of constructive possession), and State did not raise standing earlier	Court: Judicial estoppel does not apply; Ogburn may press Fourth Amendment claim on appeal
Whether seizing the key fob was within the warrant’s scope (indicia of occupancy)	Key fob is indicia of occupancy that could lead to vehicle identification and ownership evidence	Key fob is not the kind of named indicia (IDs, bills) listed in the warrant; seizing it exceeded the warrant	Court: Seizure exceeded the warrant; key fob not plain‑view incriminating item
Whether the independent‑source or inevitable‑discovery exceptions validate the vehicle search and marijuana seizure	Even if residence search was flawed, officers would have used a K‑9 around parking lot or obtained a vehicle warrant independently; exception applies	Vehicle search and K‑9 deployment were prompted by unlawfully seized key fob; State cannot show it would have acted the same absent the illegal search	Court: State failed to meet its burden under Murray; vehicle evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible

Key Cases Cited

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy/standing)
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (prosecutor’s failure to raise standing below may forfeit ability to challenge expectation of privacy)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; warrant requirement principle)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrant requirement and expectation of privacy)
Grubbs v. United States, 547 U.S. 90 (probable cause definition for warrants)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (threshold of home generally protected absent warrant/exigent circumstances)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent‑source exception and State’s burden to show they would have sought a warrant irrespective of illegal entry)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (attenuation and fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree principles)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (canine sniff of vehicle permissible without warrant)
Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Indiana standard on admission review and fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree burden)
Johnson v. State, 32 N.E.3d 1173 (odor of marijuana supporting probable cause analyzed in context)