Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 1 of 8

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

Darren Bedwell

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jewell Allen,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 28, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1710-CR-2344

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Alicia A. Gooden, 

Judge

The Honorable Richard 

Hagenmaier, Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G21-1701-F4-4074

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 2 of 8

[1] Jewell Allen appeals his conviction for Level 6 Felony Possession of Cocaine,1

arguing that the trial court should have excluded all evidence obtained from the 

search incident to his arrest. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] In early January 2017, Detective Gregory Kessie of the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) coordinated two controlled buys with 

a confidential informant. The informant completed two separate transactions 

for crack cocaine with Allen under controlled circumstances. The buys took 

place at Allen’s apartment on North Webster Avenue in Indianapolis. The 

police monitored the buys through continuous surveillance outside of Allen’s 

apartment but did not personally witness the transactions. Before and after each 

controlled buy, the informant was thoroughly searched by the police. 

[3] The informant reported back to the police immediately after the buys and 

informed them that Allen had sold him crack cocaine. Additionally, the 

informant provided a description of Allen, stated that Allen had a “dog and 

possibly a look-out,” and on January 24, 2017, identified Allen from a photo 

array as the one who had sold him the crack cocaine. St. Ex. 37. 

[4] Based on this information, on January 27, 2017, Detective Kessie obtained and

executed a warrant to search Allen’s apartment and to arrest him. The warrant 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 3 of 8

listed Allen as a person to be seized, and the scope of the warrant was limited to 

Allen’s home. St. Ex. 1. Allen was not in his apartment when the warrant was 

executed. While inside the apartment, the police discovered a small bag of 

marijuana, marijuana “roaches,” two digital scales laced with a substance later 

discovered to be cocaine, and a firearm in plain view. 

[5] Allen is a serious violent felon by virtue of his criminal history. As such, he is 

not permitted to possess a firearm. Furthermore, at the time of the search, Allen 

was on home detention, the terms of which explicitly prohibited him from 

keeping a firearm in his home. 

[6] Immediately after conducting a search of Allen’s apartment, several officers 

went to search for Allen, eventually finding him on a public street a few miles 

away from his apartment. Detective Kessie arrived and arrested Allen. 

Detective Kessie also conducted a pat-down search of Allen and discovered 

thirty-one individually wrapped bags filled with crack cocaine. 

[7] After receiving his Miranda2 warnings, Allen spoke with the police. Allen 

admitted to purchasing and selling crack cocaine and to using the scales at his 

apartment for measuring controlled substances. Such statements, coupled with 

the discovery of drugs on his person, were used as evidence in Allen’s criminal 

trial. 

 

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 4 of 8

[8] On January 31, 2017, the State charged Allen with Level 4 felony dealing in 

cocaine, Level 5 felony possession of cocaine,3 and Class B misdemeanor 

possession of marijuana. Before his trial, Allen moved to suppress evidence 

obtained from the search incident to his arrest, claiming that the State had 

violated his rights under the United States and Indiana Constitutions. The trial 

court denied his motion. 

[9] Allen’s jury trial took place on August 31, 2017. At the trial, Allen objected to 

the admission of the evidence obtained from the search incident to his arrest. 

The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. 

[10] The jury found Allen not guilty of Level 4 felony dealing in cocaine but found 

him guilty of the lesser included offense of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine. 

The jury also found Allen guilty of Class B misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana. 

[11] On September 18, 2017, the trial court sentenced Allen to 266 days for 

possession of cocaine and to a concurrent term of 180 days for possession of 

marijuana. Allen now appeals. 

 

3 The State dismissed this charge at the outset of trial.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 5 of 8

Discussion and Decision

[12] Allen argues that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Allen does not assert 

any violations of the Indiana Constitution on appeal. 

[13] We are tasked with reviewing the trial court’s decision to admit evidence. We 

will not reverse the trial court’s admission “unless the ‘trial court’s decision is 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.’” 

Reed v. Bethel, 2 N.E.3d 98, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Estate of Carter v. 

Szymczak, 951 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)). 

[14] Allen argues that his arrest was unlawful as it was not supported by probable 

cause. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects 

citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, the State must 

obtain a warrant supported by probable cause to search and to arrest an 

individual in her home. Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10, 15 (Ind. 2010). 

[15] However, warrantless arrests conducted outside the home may be permissible. 

Indiana Code section 35-33-1-1(a)(2) states that “[a] law enforcement officer 

may arrest a person when the officer has . . . probable cause to believe the 

person has committed or attempted to commit, or is committing or attempting 

to commit, a felony.” Probable cause exists “when, at the time of the arrest, the 

arresting officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances which would warrant 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 6 of 8

[a person] of reasonable caution to believe that the defendant committed the 

criminal act in question.” Sears v. State, 667 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind. 1996). 

[16] In this case, the police had probable cause to believe that Allen had engaged 

and was engaging in the illegal sale of narcotics based on the two controlled 

buys between Allen and the confidential informant. See Mills v. State, 177 

Ind.4App. 432, 379 N.E.2d 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (holding that police may 

use information gleaned from a confidential informant’s controlled buys with a 

suspect to attain probable cause). The buys were conducted in a wholly 

controlled environment. The evidence demonstrates that both before and after 

the two separate transactions, the police searched the confidential informant to 

ensure he did not already have drugs or other paraphernalia on him. 

Additionally, the informant wore recording devices to properly and accurately 

document the transactions. After both transactions, the confidential informant 

returned with drugs that he had obtained with money provided by the police for 

the purpose of a controlled buy. Most importantly, for both transactions, the 

police conducted close surveillance of Allen’s apartment to ensure that no one 

else entered or exited the residence. Later, the confidential informant identified 

Allen from a photo array as the dealer in the drug transactions. As such, the 

controlled informant’s information provided the police with probable cause to 

believe that Allen had committed a felony. 

[17] Additionally, police officers discovered a firearm in plain view in Allen’s 

apartment. Allen had previously been convicted of felony battery against a 

public official, felony resisting law enforcement, and felony possession of a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 7 of 8

narcotic drug; police had knowledge of Allen’s criminal history before 

searching his apartment. Allen’s criminal history classifies him as a serious 

violent felon. As such, it is a felony for him to possess a firearm.4 While owning 

a firearm is not per se evidence of felonious conduct, the police’s prior 

knowledge of Allen’s criminal history coupled with the knowledge that Allen 

was under a contractual duty not to own a firearm made it immediately 

apparent that possession of the firearm was illegal. 

[18] Allen argues that the initial warrant authorized police to arrest him, but only in 

his home. According to Allen, the police need a new warrant and/or more 

definite proof to arrest him outside of his home. We disagree. It is true that the 

warrant was limited to a search and seizure of Allen in his home. However, 

police also had probable cause to suspect Allen had committed or was 

committing a felony, based on the controlled buys and the firearm discovered in 

his apartment. This probable cause was all that police needed to arrest Allen—

no warrant was required. Therefore, this argument is unavailing. 

[19] Because police officers had the requisite probable cause to arrest Allen without 

a warrant, Allen’s arrest was lawful and valid under the Fourth Amendment. 

As such, police were entitled to search him incident to that arrest. Therefore, 

the trial court did not err by admitting this evidence. 

 

4

Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1710-CR-2344 | August 28, 2018 Page 8 of 8

[20] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Robb, J., concur.