Ingle v. State

• Decision Date: 25 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 2-876A309,2-876A309
• Parties: Richard I. INGLE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 887

381 N.E.2d 887

176 Ind.App. 695

Richard I. INGLE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 2-876A309.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District.

Oct. 25, 1978.

Terry E. Johnston, Tsoutsouris, Butterfield & Johnston, Valparaiso, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Kenneth R. Stamm, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

BUCHANAN, Chief Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

We use this opportunity to expand upon the justification for the warrantless police search of Ingle's basement. See this court's opinion of June 26, 1978, reported at 377 N.E.2d 885.

It is still our conclusion that the officers were justified in walking through the house in search of other suspects. See People v. Block (1971),6 Cal.3d 239, 103 Cal.Rptr. 239, 499 P.2d 961; Guevara v. Superior Court (1970), 7 Cal.App.3d 531, 86 Cal.Rptr. 657; People v. Mann (1969),61 Misc.2d 107, 305 N.Y.S.2d 226. As stated in People v. Mann, supra :

Arrest gives the police the right to search the person and the immediate surroundings of the arrestee; surveillance of a prisoner and the right to check for confederates or accomplices extends that right to permit the police an overall view of the other rooms in the premises, with a concomitant right to seize evidence or weapons in plain view.

305 N.Y.S.2d at 232-33.

Furthermore, the officers had a right to make a security check of the basement for persons who could pose a threat to their safety. Courts have consistently upheld this right to make a security check. See U. S. v. Blake (8th Cir. 1973), 484 F.2d 50, Cert. denied (1974), 417 U.S. 949, 94 S.Ct. 3076, 41 L.Ed.2d 669; U. S. v. Christophe (2d Cir. 1972), 470 F.2d 865, Cert. denied Pierro v. U. S. (1973), 411 U.S. 964, 93 S.Ct. 2140, 36 L.Ed.2d 684, and Panica v. U. S. (1973), 411 U.S. 964, 93 S.Ct. 2162, 36 L.Ed.2d 684; U. S. v. Miller (1971), 145 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 449 F.2d 974; U. S. v. Briddle (8 Cir. 1970), 436 F.2d 4, Cert. denied (1971), 401 U.S. 921, 91 S.Ct. 910, 27 L.Ed.2d 824.

In U. S. v. Blake, supra, a case with many similarities to the present case, the court stated:

Hillebrand further testified during trial that he saw a door in the kitchen that went downstairs, apparently to a basement. Hillebrand said that he and Detective Anderson went downstairs to check for other persons. In the process of making this security check of the basement, they saw the white purse (which contained heroin) on the floor in "plain view" and under an open clothes chute. . . .

The Government's . . . justification for the search comports with the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. . . . Once in the apartment, a quick and cursory viewing of the apartment is permissible to check for other persons who might present a security risk.

484 F.2d at 56-57.

In the present case, the police officers were faced with a large number of people present on the premises, at least one...