Opinion ID: 852646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution

Text: David also argues that the separate protection against unreasonable search and seizure provided by Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution required the police to obtain a warrant before viewing tapes Melissa brought to the police station and tapes removed from the house. David claims that challenges to third party consent brought under Article I, Section 11 are evaluated based on the existence of a third party's actual or apparent authority over the personal effect searched/seized rather than the premises where the effect is found. He argues that focusing on the personal effectsthe VHS tapesleads to the conclusion that Melissa could not authorize viewing of the tapes because she did not own them and had never viewed them before. David makes no additional argument in support of his state constitutional claim. [6] We think the focus of the exclusionary rule is the reasonableness of police conduct, and find the police reliance on Melissa's apparent authority over the tapes to be reasonable. Accordingly, we hold that viewing of the videotapes did not violate the Indiana Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.