Opinion ID: 2082577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Initial Entry

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution protect citizens from state intrusions into their homes. The Fourth Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution mirrors the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] These provisions prohibit warrantless entries into the home for purposes of arrest or search. Hawkins v. State (1993), Ind., 626 N.E.2d 436. Freedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment. Snellgrove v. State (1991), Ind., 569 N.E.2d 337, 340. Under these constitutional guarantees, a judicially-issued warrant must support any search of a person's residence. However, as this Court previously noted, on occasion the public interest demands greater flexibility than is offered by the constitutional mandate ... of the warrant requirement. Rabadi v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 271, 274. Although the warrant requirement is the rule, exceptions to it exist. When a search is conducted without a warrant, as it was in this case, the State bears the burden of justifying the search by proving that one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applied to overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that accompanies all warrantless home entries. Hawkins, 626 N.E.2d 436. The State's burden at the trial or suppression hearing was to demonstrate that the warrantless search fell into one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. The State sought to show that the police officers conducted the warrantless entry and seizure to prevent the destruction of evidence in the house. This is a recognized exception. Pursuant to this exception: Exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search exist where the police have an objective and reasonable fear that the evidence is about to be destroyed; the arresting officers must have a reasonable belief that there are people within the premises who are destroying or about to destroy the evidence. In such a case, the evidence's nature must be evanescent and the officers must fear its imminent destruction. The fact that narcotics are involved does not, standing alone, amount to exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search or arrest. Harless v. State (1991), Ind. App., 577 N.E.2d 245, 248 (citations omitted). The State was required to show evidence that the police had an objective and reasonable fear that the evidence was about to be destroyed. Hawkins, 626 N.E.2d at 439. Federal law requires this showing to be made by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court found that the State satisfied its burden under this exception. On appeal, we review the trial court's selection of the applicable legal standard under a de novo standard, but review its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard. U.S. v. Tartaglia, 864 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir.1989). We turn to the particular facts of the present case to determine whether the warrantless entry and search of appellant's residence, made pursuant to this exception to the search warrant requirement, was valid. The police officers testified that their belief rested upon certain beliefs the confidential informant gave to the officers: that appellant was paranoid; that appellant may have seen the police officers outside the residence at the time of the controlled buy; and that appellant might be destroying or getting ready to leave with the evidence. One officer opined that the ability of the units to conceal themselves had been limited and that they therefore might have been observed by parties in the house. The State introduced no other facts at trial as rationale to support the warrantless entry into appellant's residence. This Court is left to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant the trial court's conclusion by clear and convincing evidence that the circumstances were such as to have induced in the police officers an objective and reasonable fear that appellant was about to destroy evidence, and thus justifying their quick action and the warrantless intrusion. In reviewing the facts, we note that at the time of their decision to move without a warrant, the police officers already possessed the cocaine purchased during the controlled buy. However the police did not know from the informant that additional drugs were present in the house. What items the police officers believed to be threatened with destruction is not specified in the evidence. The fact that the confidential informant did not specifically identify or affirm that evidence was being destroyed is telling. [2] The State presented no evidence that appellant suspected the confidential informant was acting as an undercover agent. The only direct evidence presented that appellant was worried about the police outside was the hearsay testimony of Officer Tudor, relating that the confidential informant told Tudor that she believed appellant had seen the police officers. Compare U.S. v. Moore, 790 F.2d 13 (1st Cir.1986) (objective factors existed to enable investigating officers to conclude that exigent circumstances existed). The confidential informant gave no indication that appellant perceived that the money used in the controlled buy was marked and needed to destroy it in the face of an investigation. This sale went off without a hitch. The house and its entrance were under constant surveillance by police officers. The possibility that appellant could flee to escape detention did not exist, because the residence was surrounded. Surveillance of appellant's house during the controlled buy did not indicate a high volume of persons coming and going. There was no possibility that the marked buy money would become dispersed among appellant's acquaintances before a warrant could be obtained. The rationale for the clearly defined exception to the warrant requirement in cases of destruction of evidence is based on the need for quick action, because the evidence is actually in the process of being destroyed or is about to be destroyed. Ludlow v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 266, 314 N.E.2d 750. We see insufficient evidence of actual or impending destruction of evidence. What the State asks here would result in an extension of the exception far beyond the bounds of its rationale. The reality of this situation was that there could be no danger of loss of the marked money until someone tried to leave the house. The money and any other drugs were bottled up in the house, and there is little reason to believe that its occupants were alerted to the existence of the undercover operation. The police officers could have and should have sought a search warrant before entering appellant's residence. The evidence presented to the trial court was not sufficient to support its constitutional finding that the police officers held an objective and reasonable fear of loss of buy money and other possible evidence of drug dealing. The items of evidence which were the direct products of such entry should have been suppressed. Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984).