Case Name: Victor KEEYLEN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 2014-11-06
Citations: 21 N.E.3d 840
Docket Number: No. 49A05-1308-CR-419
Parties: Victor KEEYLEN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Judges: FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 3d
Volume: 21
Pages: 840–841

Head Matter:
Victor KEEYLEN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 49A05-1308-CR-419.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Nov. 6, 2014.
Todd Ess, Stephen Gerald Gray, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION ON REHEARING
MATHIAS, Judge.
Victor Keeylen ("Keeylen") has filed a petition for rehearing of our opinion affirming the Marion Supei-ior Court's denial of his motion to suppress. We grant Keeylen's petition to clarify one factual issue, but otherwise affirm our opinion in all respects.
In our original opinion, we stated that "Detective Graber submitted the probable cause affidavit to the very same trial court and trial judge who had been authorizing the GPS searches for over a year. It is unlikely that he thought that the omission of this information would mislead the trial judge." Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865, 877 (Ind.Ct.App.2014).
In his petition for rehearing, Keeylen notes that the judicial officer who issued the search warrant did not issue all of the orders authorizing the .GPS tracking.. However, the Commissioner who issued the warrant did issue the final order authorizing the GPS tracking. Cf. Exhibits Vol., Defendant's Ex. Al, p. 3, B11, p. 11. And the last four authorization orders were issued by this very same court, Criminal Division 11. Id., Defendant's Ex. B8-Bll.
The point we made in our original opinion remains valid: it is unlikely that Detective Graber was attempting to mislead the judicial officer issuing the search warrant by omitting information regarding the GPS tracking because the same judicial officer who issued the search warrant had previously authorized the GPS tracking and was thus well aware of the GPS tracking.
Aside from this factual clarification, we affirm our original opinion in all respects.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
. This judicial officer appears to be the Commissioner for Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 11. See id.
. The previous seven authorization' orders were issued by Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 20, the court where Keeylen was tried and convicted. Id., Defendant's Ex. Bl-B10.