Court Opinion

ID: 9884622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:03:56.118161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.839281
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
concurring in result.
I1 believe the totality of the cireum-stances here presented is sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to conclude that search of Snover's premises would uncover evidence of a crime. Accordingly, while I agree with my colleagues that Sno-ver's convictions should be affirmed, I do so on other grounds.
The United States Supreme Court has held that uncorroborated hearsay from a source whose credibility is itself unknown, standing alone, cannot support a finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 227, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 LEd.2d 527 (1983). The federal test for ensuring the reliability of a *1052hearsay statement in a probable cause determination allows the use of hearsay only if the totality of the cireumstances corroborates the hearsay. Id, 462 U.S. at 230-31, 103 S.Ct. 2317. The reliability of hearsay can be established in a number of ways, including where: (1) the informant has given correct information in the past, (2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant's statements, (8) some basis for the informant's knowledge is demonstrated, or (4) the informant predicts conduct or activities by the suspect that are not ordinarily easily predicted. Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180, 182 (Ind.1997).
Further, Indiana Code § 35-83-5-2(b) provides:
When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either:
(1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or
(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the cireumstances corroborates the hearsay.
Here, Elkhart police found Kelly Hammond in possession of suspected methain-phetamine. Hammond admitted the drugs were his and that it was an eighth of an ounce. He stated that he purchased the drugs from Donald Snover in an upstairs bedroom at Snover's residence for $125 just prior to the traffic stop. He provided the address of the residence and stated that he personally observed that Snover was in possession of methamphetamine and marijuana. The address provided by Hammond was independently verified by police as Snover's residence. The evidence provided by Hammond was consistent with evidence police had obtained in a drug investigation in which a confidential informant who had provided credible information in the past, stated that Snover was dealing methamphetamine in an ongoing long-term operation from his residence-the same residence identified by Hammond.
To me, Hammond's statements to police qualified as statements against penal interest. Hammond admitted that the drugs were his and that he had just purchased them from Snover. Although the police had already discovered the drugs in Hammond's car, Hammond's statements to police clearly tended to subject him to criminal liability by removing any question that Hammond was in actual possession of the drugs. Moreover, even if they did not, Hammond's statements are corroborated by, and corroboration for, the statements which police had earlier obtained from their confidential informant. Thus, even if neither the statements made by the confidential informant nor by Hammond individually provide a sufficient basis for the determination of probable cause, taken together they are sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to conclude that a search of Snover's residence would produce evidence of a crime as, indeed, it did.