Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 11

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Derick W. Steele

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Supervising Deputy Attorney 

General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William T. Gudger,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 18, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-525

Appeal from the Howard Superior 

Court

The Honorable Brant J. Parry, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

34D02-1604-F3-78

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 11

Statement of the Case

[1] William T. Gudger appeals his conviction for robbery, as a Level 3 felony, 

following a jury trial. Gudger presents one issue for our review, namely, 

whether the trial court erred when it admitted evidence that law enforcement

officers had seized pursuant to a search of his residence. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On April 6, 2016, Gudger entered a bank in Kokomo wearing “fake hair” under 

a hat, sunglasses, a sweatshirt, and a dark coat. Tr. Vol. II at 96. One of the 

employees of the bank, Jenna Canady, approached Gudger to ask him to 

remove his hat and sunglasses. In response, Gudger pulled out a gun and 

stated: “This is a f**king robbery. Put your hands up. I want $20,000.” Id. 

After the bank tellers did not respond to Gudger’s demand quickly enough, 

Gudger “got angry” and fired a shot at the floor. Id. at 94. The bank tellers 

then gave Gudger $5,967. 

[4] Shortly after Gudger had left, law enforcement officers arrived at the scene and 

found pieces of the shattered bullet on the floor. Officers also found tire tracks 

and two twenty-dollar bills in a grassy area outside of the bank. The officers 

then obtained a copy of the video from the bank’s surveillance camera, which 

had recorded the robbery. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 11

[5] After he had obtained the money, Gudger fled the scene. He called his sister, 

Kristen Gudger, and asked her to pick him up. It “sounded like something was 

wrong,” so Kristen left work in Indianapolis to pick Gudger up. Id. at 64. 

Gudger sent Kristen a text message with an address in Kokomo where he 

would be waiting. Once Kristen arrived at the address, Gudger and his 

girlfriend, Beverly Harris, got into Kristen’s car, and Kristen drove them to 

Indianapolis. 

[6] At one point during the drive, Gudger stated: “f**k, f**k . . . I forgot the bag.” 

Id. at 68. Gudger then asked Kristen if they could turn around so that he could 

get his bag. Kristen refused, and she asked Gudger what he had done. Gudger 

responded: “I do what I do best.” Id. He then pulled out “a decent wad of 

cash” from his pocket, which was “unusual” for him to have. Id. at 69, 88. 

Based on a prior conversation in which Gudger had told Kristen that “[a]ll he 

would have to do is rob a bank” to solve his problems, Kristen determined that 

Gudger had robbed a bank. Id. at 70. Kristen then began “freaking out,” but 

she did not want Gudger or Harris to know, so she continued to drive to 

Indianapolis. Id. at 69.

[7] As they approached Indianapolis, Gudger asked Kristen if she would take them 

to a mall. Kristen complied, and Gudger and Harris purchased some items. 

The three then went to a restaurant. After they had finished their meal, they 

drove to a gas station. While there, Gudger saw a news story about the robbery 

on his phone. Gudger told Kristen that “he had used a gun” and that he had 

shot the gun into the floor, but he did not specifically tell Kristen that he had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 4 of 11

robbed a bank. Id. at 75. After they left the gas station, Kristen dropped 

Gudger and Harris off at a hotel where they stayed for the night. 

[8] The next morning, Kristen contacted Detective Robert Scaife with the Muncie 

Police Department, who is her uncle. Kristen informed Detective Scaife that 

Gudger had robbed a bank in Kokomo. Detective Scaife then called Kokomo 

Police Detective Michael Banush and told Detective Banush about his phone 

call with Kristen. 

[9] Detective Banush then “immediately” called Kristen. Id. at 122. Kristen 

relayed all of the facts from the previous day to Detective Banush. Kristen 

specifically told Detective Banush that she had picked Gudger and Harris up 

from a house at 720 South Purdum Street in Kokomo and that they had 

checked into room number 255 at the Best Western hotel in Indianapolis.

[10] Detective Banush was able to confirm that Harris had checked into room 255 of 

a Comfort Inn that had previously been a Best Western and that Harris lived at 

720 South Purdum Street. Detective Banush applied for a search warrant for 

Harris’ house. In support of his request for the search warrant, Detective 

Banush filed an affidavit of probable cause that stated in part:

On 04/06/2016 at approximately 3:30 pm, Officers of the 

Kokomo Police Department were sent to Security Federal Bank, 

519 E. Markland Ave. in reference to a bank robbery. Dispatch 

advised that a black male entered the bank with a handgun, 

stated, “This is a robbery” and demanded $20,000.00. The male 

ordered everyone to put their hands up, fired the handgun toward 

the floor and demanded $20,000.00 again. The tellers handed the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 5 of 11

suspect cash and he left the bank. The employees described the 

suspect as a black male, 5-9 to 5-10 in height, thin build, having 

dreadlocks, wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, black pea coat, 

black hat, sunglasses[,] blue jeans[,] and blue tennis shoes.

On 04/07/2016, the affiant received a phone call from a Det. 

Robert Scaife of the Muncie Police Department. Det. Scaife 

stated that his niece, Kristen Gudger called him this morning and 

said that her brother robbed the bank in Kokomo yesterday. The 

affiant contacted Kristen Gudger of Indianapolis IN and she 

stated that her brother is William T. Gudger, DOB: 03/15/1982. 

She stated that on yesterday’s date, William called her and asked 

her to pick him up in Kokomo. She stated that she drove to 

Kokomo and picked William and his girlfriend up from 720 S. 

Purdum Street. She identified the girlfriend as a black female 

named Beverly who lives at 720 S. Purdum St. She stated that 

William wanted her to take him and Beverly to Indianapolis IN. 

On the way to Indianapolis, William told her that he robbed a 

bank with a gun and showed her a pocket full of cash. Kristen 

asked William which bank he robbed and he told her that he 

robbed the bank where all of the police cars were. It should be 

noted that 720 S. Purdum is just blocks from Security Federal 

Bank. William also told her that he robbed the bank 1 1/2 hours 

ago. William also gave her $300.00 cash for picking him up and 

driving him and Beverly to Indianapolis. Kristen said that on the 

way to Indianapolis, William told Beverly that he forgot to bring 

the bag containing the clothes that he wore during the bank 

robbery. Kristen stated the bag of clothes is in the residence at 

720 S. Purdum St. Kristen stated that she drove William and 

Beverly to a Best Western Hotel at Washington Street and I465. 

She stated that William and Beverly checked into room #255. 

Kristen also stated that William called her today and wants her 

to pick him up at the hotel and drive him back to 720 S. Purdum 

St. so he can get the bag of clothes and destroy them. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 6 of 11

The Indianapolis State Police went to Washington Street and

I465 and found a Comfort Stay Inn that used to be a Best 

Western, 7610 Old Trail Rd. Indianapolis IN. ISP investigators 

confirmed with the hotel staff that Beverly Harris is a registered 

guest in room #255. Investigators also confirmed that Beverly 

Harris resides at 720 S. Purdum St. in Kokomo IN. 

Appealed Order at 2-3. 

[11] The trial court granted the search warrant, and officers executed the warrant 

later that day. As a result of the search, the officers discovered a white trash 

bag that contained a black wig, a black pea coat, blue tennis shoes, and pants. 

Officers also found a gray hooded sweatshirt on top of a clothes basket and a 

pair of sunglasses. Those items matched the items officers were able to observe 

on the bank’s surveillance video.

[12] Following that search, Detective Banush applied for a search warrant for the 

hotel room, which the trial court granted. Officers went to the hotel in order to 

execute the search warrant. Prior to searching the hotel room, officers arrested

Gudger and found “a large amount of cash” in his pocket. Tr. Vol. II at 127. 

Officers then searched the room and found “brand new items that had been 

purchased.” Id. at 129. They also found receipts “that totaled over a couple 

thousand dollars.” Id. Officers transported Gudger to the Kokomo Police 

Department. Once there, officers read Gudger his Miranda rights, and Gudger

gave a statement in which he confessed to having robbed the bank. 

[13] The State charged Gudger with one count of robbery, as a Level 3 felony. On 

January 23, 2018, Gudger filed a motion to suppress any evidence seized during 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 7 of 11

the search of his residence. In that motion, he asserted that the affidavit for 

probable cause that Detective Banush had filed in support of his request for the 

search warrant was based only on hearsay statements and that the affidavit did 

not contain any information to indicate that the hearsay statements were 

reliable or credible. Gudger further requested that the court suppress all items 

obtained from the search of his hotel room and his confession because the 

warrant to search the hotel and his arrest were “derivatively gained” from the 

warrant to search his house. Motion to Suppress at 11.1

 The trial court denied 

Gudger’s motion.

[14] The trial court held a jury trial on January 23 through 25. During the trial, the 

State moved to admit as evidence photographs of the clothing that officers had

found in Gudger’s home as well as photographs of items found in the hotel 

room. The trial court admitted that evidence over Gudger’s objection. The 

State also moved to admit as evidence the transcript of Gudger’s interview with 

police, which the court admitted over Gudger’s objection. Further, the State 

presented the testimony of Canady and another bank teller, Kelly Stephenson, 

who both identified Gudger as the man who had robbed the bank. The jury 

found Gudger guilty of robbery, as a Level 3 felony. The trial court entered 

judgment of conviction and sentenced Gudger to fifteen years in the 

Department of Correction. This appeal ensued. 

 

1

 Gudger provided a copy of the motion to suppress in his appendix, but that copy is illegible. See

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 74-84. Accordingly, we have taken judicial notice of the motion to suppress that 

Gudger filed in the trial court, which we have obtained via the Odyssey case management system. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 8 of 11

Discussion and Decision

[15] Gudger contends that the trial court erred when it admitted as evidence items 

law enforcement officers had seized during the search of his residence.2

 

Gudger’s argument that the search of his residence violated his constitutional 

rights raises “questions of law that we review de novo.” Redfield v. State, 78 

N.E.3d 1104, 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quotation marks omitted), trans. 

denied. 

[16] On appeal, Gudger contends that the search of his residence was illegal because 

the search warrant lacked probable cause. Specifically, Gudger asserts that the 

search was improper because the affidavit for probable cause contained only

hearsay statements and because the affidavit did not contain any information to 

“indicate[] any corroboration” of those statements. Appellant’s Br. at 8. 

[17] But we need not decide whether there was probable cause to issue the search 

warrant. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Gudger is correct and 

there was no probable cause to support the search warrant, “[t]he lack of 

probable cause does not automatically require the suppression of evidence 

obtained during a search conducted pursuant to a warrant.” Jackson v. State, 

908 N.E.2d 1140, 1143 (Ind. 2009). Indeed, “the exclusionary rule does not 

 

2

 Throughout his brief on appeal, Gudger asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to 

suppress. However, because Gudger appeals after a completed trial, “the question of whether the trial court 

erred in denying his motion to suppress is no longer viable.” Reinhart v. State, 930 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 9 of 11

require the suppression of evidence obtained in reliance on a defective search 

warrant if the police relied on the warrant in objection good faith.” Id. 

[18] Accordingly, to prove that the trial court committed reversible error when it 

admitted as evidence items officers has seized from his residence, Gudger must 

demonstrate both that the warrant lacked probable cause and that the good faith 

exception does not apply. But, on appeal, Gudger only asserts that the search 

warrant lacked probable cause. He makes no argument that the good faith 

exception does not apply. 

[19] It is well settled that there are two situations where the good faith exception 

does not apply. See id. Those include situations where “the magistrate is 

misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would 

have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth” or situations 

where “the warrant was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable 

cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Id. 

(quotation marks omitted). 

[20] Gudger has not directed us to any evidence in the record, or made any 

argument, that the magistrate was misled by information in the affidavit that 

Detective Banush knew or should have known was false. Neither does he 

assert that the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render 

belief in its existence entirely unreasonably. Accordingly, Gudger has not met 

his burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court erred when it admitted 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 10 of 11

as evidence items seized pursuant to the search of his residence.

3

 We therefore 

affirm the trial court. 

[21] Affirmed.

Robb, J., concurs.

Baker, J., concurs with separate opinion.

 

3

 Gudger also asserts, without more, that, “[b]ecause there was no probable cause to search 720 South 

Purdum, there was no legally obtained information to arrest Gudger and search the hotel where Gudger and 

Harris were staying.” Appellant’s Br. at 9. While it appears as though Gudger attempts to assert that the 

search of his hotel room and his statement to police should be suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree, Gudger 

does not cite any authority for his proposition or provide any argument to support his conclusory statement 

that his confession and the items from the hotel room should be suppressed. Accordingly, Gudger has failed 

to make cogent argument, and that purported issue is waived. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). In any 

event, given that Grudger not has met his burden to show reversible error in the seizure of evidence under the 

first warrant, his derivative argument under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine also fails on the merits.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-525 | June 18, 2019 Page 11 of 11

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William T. Gudger,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-525

Baker, Judge, concurring.

[22] I fully concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that in my 

view, there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. It is true that the 

probable cause affidavit was primarily based on hearsay. But I find it 

significant that after receiving the call from Kristen, Detective Banush 

investigated and was able to verify some of her assertions, including the hotel in 

which Gudger was staying, his room number, and his home address. I believe 

that this follow-up investigation and confirmation of some of the salient details 

provided by Kristen shows that the information she had provided was 

sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause for the warrant.