Court Opinion

ID: 9743600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:38:12.558195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.470690
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Judge,
concurring in result in part.
I agree with the majority that the trial court properly overruled Wood’s objection to the evidence pertaining to the marijuana found outside and inside her house. The trial court properly concluded that Wood did not have a reasonable and actual expectation of privacy in the yard by the south side of her house and, therefore, the marijuana plants were growing in “open view.” Thus, a search did not occur and any fruits of that search are admissible, including the use of those fruits as probable cause for the subsequently issued search warrant.
Also, the inadvertence doctrine is not a requirement of Art. 1, § 11 of our Indiana Constitution. The Indiana cases reciting the inadvertence doctrine rely upon cases decided under the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, when the Supreme Court disavowed the plurality decision of Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 in Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112, the inadvertence doctrine ceased to exist.
I concur in Issue II.