Court Opinion

ID: 9526769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:23:49.590391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:51.967762
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting
I respectfully dissent.
The police in this instance were merely involved in a permissible investigation, albeit based upon an anonymous tip. They did not violate the "curtilage" by walking between the truck and the house. If it is not a constitutional violation to enter upon a porch to knock upon a door, it is not a constitutional violation to enter upon an area further removed from the person's private home in order to continue the investigation as to the presence of the owner.
If, as held in Wilkinson v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. de*440nied, the running of a random license plate check is not a constitutional search violation, it would seem that Officer Rosenbar-ger's presence next to the truck, which was partially on the driveway and partially on the grass, would also be permissible. Here, the officers merely smelled the marijuana while in proximity to the truck next to the house.
Here, there was no search at all until after the search warrant was obtained. It is therefore unlike Shultz v. State, 742 N.E.2d 961 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, relied upon by the majority. In Shults, a search occurred in that the officer wiped dirt off the wheel-well of a semi-tractor in order to see the partial VIN.
Finally, even if the conduct of the officers could be reasoned to constitute a search, it was not an unreasonable search which is what is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and by Article 1 Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
I would affirm the denial of Divello's Motion to Suppress.