44 N.E.3d 833
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On August 16, 2013 Officer Carey stopped Tonya Herron for suspected intoxicated driving, observed signs of intoxication, and obtained a preliminary breath test of .19. Herron refused a certified chemical test after being read Indiana’s implied consent law.
- Officer Carey completed a standard probable-cause affidavit for a blood-draw warrant; several individualized fields identifying the specific erratic driving observed and an explicit allegation that Herron was the operator were left blank (agreed to be inadvertent).
- The magistrate signed the warrant; a blood sample was taken and Herron was later charged with OWI and BAC ≥ .15.
- Herron moved to suppress the blood-evidence; the trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals reviewed the interlocutory denial.
- The court of appeals held the affidavit lacked probable cause because it did not include individualized facts establishing that Herron operated the vehicle, and therefore reversed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Herron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit contained probable cause to issue a warrant for a blood draw | The affidavit’s boilerplate statements plus the officer’s entries of date, time, location, observations of intoxication, and that Herron refused testing provided a substantial basis to infer she was the driver | The affidavit lacked any individualized allegation or factual basis that Herron operated the vehicle; boilerplate alone is insufficient | Reversed — affidavit insufficient: individualized facts showed intoxication but not that Herron operated the vehicle, so no probable cause for OWI warrant |
| Whether the Leon good-faith exception saves the seizure | The officer reasonably relied on a magistrate-issued warrant; the good-faith exception should apply | The affidavit lacked indicia of probable cause such that reliance was not objectively reasonable; officer’s errors were nondeliberate but the warrant was not properly issued | Rejected — good-faith exception does not apply because the warrant was not properly issued upon probable cause; exclusion remains necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (judicial errors vs. police conduct in exclusionary-rule analysis)
- Milam v. State, 14 N.E.3d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishing passenger intoxication from operation for OWI)
- Rios v. State, 762 N.E.2d 153 (use of boilerplate is permissible only where affidavit includes sufficient case-specific facts)
- Kinnaird v. State, 242 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. 1968) (warrant invalid where affidavit failed to state facts supporting claimed offense)
- Dolliver v. State, 598 N.E.2d 525 (admonition against allowing good-faith exception to swallow exclusionary rule)
- Lloyd v. State, 677 N.E.2d 71 (magistrate’s practical, common-sense probable-cause determination reviewed deferentially)