Opinion ID: 2680598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrantless Searches and Consent Exception.

Text: “Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is one of the most essential constitutional rights” under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77, 79 (Ind. 1995). A warrantless search violates the federal provision unless it falls within one of “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 935 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our State constitutional provision, “although almost identical in text to its federal counterpart, nevertheless requires a different analysis that focuses on the totality of the circumstances,” State v. Washington, 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1205 (Ind. 2008)—an inquiry that “turn[s] on a balance of: 1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs,” as well as “other relevant considerations under the circumstances,” Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005). “A warrantless search based on lawful consent is consistent with both the Indiana and Federal Constitutions.” Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590, 600 (Ind. 2008) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973) and Perry v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1236, 1240 (Ind. 1994)). II. Validity of Defendant’s Consent to Enter or Search. Under both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, the State carries “the burden of proving ‘that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, 4 express or implied.’” Campos, 885 N.E.2d at 600 (quoting Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 248, and citing Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905, 917–18 (Ind. 2003)). “‘Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances.’” Campos, 885 N.E.2d at 600 (quoting Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 248–49). And “a consent to search is valid except where procured by fraud, duress, fear, or intimidation or where it is merely a submission to the supremacy of the law.” Joyner v. State, 736 N.E.2d 232, 242 (Ind. 2000). If police imply that the defendant has no right to resist a search, any purported “consent” will be found invalid. Such coercion may be implied by what police say. For instance, asking for consent to search while also affirmatively telling the subject that the search is “necessary” renders consent invalid because it implies that refusing to consent is not an option. See Campos, 885 N.E.2d at 595, 600. Similarly, consent is invalid if police assert that they will get a warrant regardless of consent, as though a warrant were a foregone conclusion—though merely stating that they will seek a warrant may be permissible. Daniel v. State, 582 N.E.2d 364, 368–69 (Ind. 1991). Actions, too, may imply coercion. If someone voluntarily opens the door for police, who then enter with guns drawn and begin searching with no further discussion, there is no valid “consent” to the search because in such circumstances, no reasonable person could interpret merely opening the door for entry as also implying consent to search the premises. Smith v. State, 889 N.E.2d 836, 838–40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). But even considering the undisputed facts that favor Defendant, we see no coercive words or actions here. Defendant argues that he was effectively “in custody” or under duress because, as he puts it, “[his] young daughter was in police custody and he had just been told police had to inspect the apartment for him to get his child back.” We disagree. First, it was Defendant who initially approached police and not vice-versa, so the encounter began as consensual. Second, police stating that they “would probably end up getting ahold of CPS,” with no assertions about what CPS would do, is no more coercive than stating that they will seek a warrant, as Daniel holds may be permissible. Third, we note that by Defendant’s own account in his post-arrest statement to police, he was allowed to carry R. as he led police back to the apartment—which we see as a strong sign of a non-confrontational, non-coercive encounter, and certainly inconsistent with R. being “in police custody” as he contends. Finally, we see little practical difference between police colloquially stating that they “needed to come back to [Defendant’s] apartment” to verify safe living conditions, rather than directly asking whether they may do so. Accordingly, when Defendant told police “it was okay” to check the apartment, we find no reason not to take his consent at face value. 5 Moreover, just as coercion may be implied, so may consent. “An explicit verbal consent or any other form of affirmative invitation to enter a dwelling is not necessary to constitute consent for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Villegas, 388 F.3d 317, 324 (7th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, “[i]t is well established that consent may be manifested in a non-verbal as well as a verbal manner.” United States v. Walls, 225 F.3d 858, 863 (7th Cir. 2000). When police identify themselves, ask permission to speak with a defendant, and do not threaten the defendant or brandish their weapons, opening the door and allowing them to enter has been held to “sufficiently manifest consent for the officers to enter.” Villegas, 388 F.3d at 325; see also Walls, 225 F.3d at 862–63 (consent to enter was validly given when “Walls opened the door and stepped back to allow [agents’] entrance” after they had identified themselves and what they were investigating). Likewise here, after giving express consent, Defendant led police back to the apartment, then opened the door for them—with no indication that he tried to prevent or delay their entry, or that police forced their way past him. His actions at the door were consistent with his express consent given at the pond, and further indicate his consent to police entering the apartment. And immediately after he allowed them to enter, Defendant’s actions gave them independent cause for the pat-down that revealed the baggies of marijuana, no matter what might otherwise have been within the scope of the “safety check” to which he consented. Making a “bee line” to the kitchen, then furtively stuffing unknown objects into his pockets, amply warranted a pat-down for officer safety—and thus to discovery of the scales, cash, and additional marijuana that were in plain view on the counter. It was well within the trial court’s discretion to admit those items into evidence on the basis of consent, so we need not address the “community caretaking” rationale on which the Court of Appeals relied.