Case Information
*1 A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Gregory F. Zoeller Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Cynthia L. Ploughe Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana In the
Indiana Supreme Court No. 02S05-1404-CR-246
J ONATHAN D. C ARPENTER ,
Appellant (Defendant below), v.
S TATE OF I NDIANA ,
Appellee (Plaintiff below) . Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, No. 02D04-1207-FD-1008 The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 02A05-1304-CR-207
October 21, 2014
Massa, Justice. Jonathan Carpenter appeals the admission of evidence recovered from his home after officers entered it without a warrant in pursuit of an aggressive and bloody dog. We are asked to decide whether that entry was reasonable. Because we find it was not, we hold that the search violated Article 1, Section 11 of our Indiana Constitution and thus we reverse the trial court. *2 Facts and Procedural History
On a summer afternoon, police responded to a report of dogs fighting in Carpenter’s backyard. Officer Matthew Wilson of the Fort Wayne Police Department was the first to arrive on the scene. Neighbors told him that Carpenter was not home and gave him Carpenter’s cell phone number. From outside the fenced yard, Officer Wilson observed three bloody pit bulls running to and from an area underneath a deck where a wounded fourth dog had retreated. Officer Tina Blackburn arrived next, followed by Sergeant Derrick Westfield. They also saw the dogs running in and out of the home through an open sliding glass door.
When Fort Wayne Animal Care and Control Officer Bryan Miller arrived, he decided to enter the yard to corral the dogs despite Sergeant Westfield’s reservations. As the gate was locked, Miller jumped over the three-foot fence to remove the dogs from the yard and secure them in his vehicle. Miller caught three of the dogs, including the most severely injured one hiding under the deck, but the fourth dog went into the house and would not come out. At that point, Miller asked Sergeant Westfield to enter the house with him to retrieve the fourth dog and ensure no one was injured.
The officers knocked on the front door, but no one answered. Sergeant Westfield then announced their presence at the open sliding door in the back and asked if anyone was inside, but no one responded. They entered the home, and once inside, Miller and Sergeant Westfield noticed two doors with ventilation ducts protruding out of them and a strong light emanating from behind them. Sergeant Westfield opened the door to one of the rooms and found marijuana plants inside. Miller eventually located the fourth dog in an upstairs bedroom and removed it. They did not find any other dogs or people in the home.
Based on the officers’ observations, members of the Vice and Narcotics Unit obtained and executed a search warrant for Carpenter’s home, seizing the marijuana and other controlled substances. During the search, neighbors advised the officers that Carpenter worked at the gas station just down the street. Carpenter returned home, and the officers arrested him.
*3 The State charged Carpenter with five Class D felonies: maintaining a common nuisance, possession of more than thirty grams of marijuana, and three counts of possession of a controlled substance. 1 It also charged him with one Class A misdemeanor: possession of paraphernalia. Carpenter moved to suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing the search violated his rights under both the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of our Indiana Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court denied Carpenter’s motion. During his bench trial, Carpenter objected to the admission of the evidence, but the trial court overruled that objection and admitted it. The court found Carpenter guilty of all charges.
Carpenter appealed his conviction, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
the challenged evidence and without it, his conviction lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The
Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court, concluding exigent circumstances justified
the officers’ warrantless entry into Carpenter’s home. Carpenter v. State,
Standard of Review
Although Carpenter frames his appeal as a challenge to the trial court’s denial of his pretrial
suppression motion, he did not seek interlocutory review of that decision. Thus, we consider his
appeal as what it is: a request to review the court’s decision to admit the evidence at trial.
Guilmette v. State,
*4 2013) (“Direct review of the denial of a motion to suppress is only proper when the defendant files an interlocutory appeal.”)).
In ruling on admissibility following the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court
considers the foundational evidence presented at trial. Id. at 40 n.1. It also considers the evidence
from the suppression hearing that is favorable to the defendant only to the extent it is
uncontradicted at trial. Id. Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess
witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and reverse only
if a ruling is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects
a party’s substantial rights.” Clark, 994 N.E.2d at 260. But the ultimate determination of the
constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo. McIlquham
v. State,
The Trial Court Erred by Admitting the Evidence Recovered from Carpenter’s Home. Carpenter argues the officers’ entry into his home was unreasonable and therefore violated his rights under Article 1, Section 11 of our Indiana Constitution. He contends the warrant to search his home was based upon illegally obtained information, and the trial court should have excluded the evidence obtained in that search. We agree.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
Ind. Const. art. 1, § 11. Although Indiana’s Section 11 and the Federal Fourth Amendment are
textually identical, they are analytically distinct. Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind.
2013). The Fourth Amendment analysis turns on whether the subject has a “reasonable expectation
of privacy,” Katz v. United States,
Here, the State concedes the officers’ entry was not based upon any concern, suspicion, or knowledge that anything illegal was going on inside the home. State’s Br. at 12 (“To be sure, when the officers entered the curtilage and the house, they were not concerned about any ‘violation.’”). Instead, they entered to secure the dog and determine if any person needed help. Id. at 13 (“The police needed to determine the source of the blood on the animals and, more importantly, to determine if there were humans inside the house in need of medical assistance.”). The first factor thus weighs against the legality of the search.
Next, we turn to the degree of intrusion, which we consider from Carpenter’s point of view.
See Duran v. State,
Finally, we balance the needs of law enforcement. Police sometimes act not to further an
investigation of wrongdoing but rather to prevent imminent harm or to provide emergency
assistance. We have said before that protection of the public is a legitimate and important law
*6
enforcement function. Holder v. State,
Nevertheless, although the police unquestionably have an interest in protecting the public
from risk of harm from a violent dog, this interest does not confer blanket authority to enter private
homes under all circumstances. Unlike Holder and VanWinkle, in which the officers knew there
were people in dangerous situations, the officers in this case had no such knowledge. In fact, the
objective evidence suggested there was no one home; no one answered the door or responded to
the officers’ announcements, and a neighbor told the officers the homeowner was at work. Any
threat of danger to the outside public was slight; the dog was confined in a fenced yard secured by
a locked gate, and the officers could have further prevented the dog’s escape by closing the sliding
door. The dogs’ aggressive behavior and bloodied appearance simply were not enough to give
rise to a reasonable belief that a person was in danger of imminent harm or in need of immediate
assistance. Moreover, the officers did not
need
to enter to address the situation. They had
*7
Carpenter’s phone number, and calling him or his employer to ensure that no one was in the
residence would not have been overly burdensome. See Trotter v. State,
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the trial court.
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.