Frasier v. State
Decision Date | 26 August 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 07A01-0207-CR-239.,07A01-0207-CR-239. |
Parties | Larry R. FRASIER, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David C. Grupenhoff, Thomas M. Barr & Associates, Nashville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellant, Larry R. Frasier, Jr., brings this discretionary interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's decision to deny his motion to suppress certain evidence. Frasier presents four issues for our review, which we restate as the following three:
I. Whether the search warrant issued by the trial court was supported by probable cause;
II. Whether, if the search warrant was improperly issued, the evidence obtained as a result of the issuance of the warrant is nevertheless admissible under the "good faith" exception; and
III. Whether images discovered during a search of Frasier's personal computer may properly be entered into evidence.
We affirm.
The record reveals that on November 1, 2000, Brown County Sheriff's Department Detective Scott Southerland prepared an affidavit seeking a search warrant authorizing a search of Frasier's residence. The affidavit being essential to the resolution of this case, we set forth the contents thereof:
Based upon this affidavit, Brown County Circuit Court Judge Judith A. Stewart issued a search warrant which directed the police to enter Frasier's home and garage and to search for and seize the following:
"Marijuana plants, processed marijuana, marijuana packaging materials and equipment, equipment used to grow marijuana, drug paraphernalia, notes and/or records related to the sale of marijuana, scales, safes and/or lock boxes used to store marijuana...."1 Id. at 28.
On November 1, 2001, Detective Southerland and other officers executed the warrant. When Southerland entered the Frasier residence, he went to the bedroom where a personal computer was located. Southerland first noticed an icon labeled "Smoke" located on the computer's "desktop."2 Upon opening this file to view it, Southerland discovered that it included a letter to a company which sold a product purporting to allow one to pass a urine drug screen. Southerland then began opening documents listed in the "Documents" sub-menu of the computer's "Start" menu. This sub-menu lists recently opened...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. McDermott
...permitted seizure of computers because they were "reasonably likely to serve as `containers' for writings"); Frasier v. State, 794 N.E.2d 449, 454, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (warrant authorizing search of "notes and/or records" of marijuana sales allowed police to examine computer We analogize ......
-
Heckler & Koch, Inc. v. German Sport Guns GmbH
... ... 71 F.Supp.3d 877 The original version of this complaint, later removed from Indiana state court to this Court, was brought by HK USA alone, and it contained only a claim for breach of contract. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs subsequently ... ...
-
People v. Reyes
...so, the "lurid communications" between the defendant and the additional minors were in plain view. Id. ; see also Frasier v. State , 794 N.E.2d 449, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) ("[The police officer] believed he was authorized to access the data on [the defendant's] computer to search for mari......
-
State v. DeGroff, No. 30758-8-II (WA 6/29/2005), 30758-8-II
...from cocaine except by testing it. United States v. Hill, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1090-91 (C.D. Cal. 2004); accord Frasier v. State, 794 N.E.2d 449, 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). The officer's opening of image and graphic files was part of a proper search for scheduling documents and other busine......
-
Why the plain view doctrine should not apply to digital evidence.
..."because the agents inevitably would have discovered their contents in the proper execution of the other portion of the warrant"). (73) 794 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. (74) Id. at 465-66. (75) 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 799 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). (76) Id. at 803-04. (77) 1 Misc. 3d 638 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2......