Phillips v. State

• Citation: 174 N.E.3d 635
• Decision Date: 12 August 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1962
• Parties: Brian J. PHILLIPS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

174 N.E.3d 635

Brian J. PHILLIPS, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1962

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED August 12, 2021

Attorney for Appellant: Zachary J. Stock, Attorney at Law, P.C., Carmel, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Weissmann, Judge.

[1] Brian J. Phillips's house guest reported to police that Phillips was using and dealing methamphetamine in his home. Based solely on that information, police obtained a warrant to search Phillips's home, where they found evidence of drug dealing consistent with the house guest's accusations. Phillips ultimately was charged with and convicted of dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony, and possession of methamphetamine, a Level 3 felony, for which he is now serving concurrent sentences of 10 years and 5 years, respectively.

[2] Phillips appeals both convictions, claiming they were based solely on evidence obtained in an illegal search conducted pursuant to a defective warrant. He asserts the only basis for issuance of the warrant was a drug addict's unreliable statements, which failed to establish the necessary probable cause for the warrant. Finding no illegal search, we affirm Phillips's conviction for dealing in methamphetamine. However, we sua sponte reverse Phillips's conviction for possession of methamphetamine because it violates double jeopardy.

Facts

[3] In September 2019, Garrett Police Officer Tyler Strahl arrested Kathy Handshoe on an outstanding warrant at Phillips's home. When Officer Strahl searched Handshoe, he found a syringe containing a white crystal substance later identified as methamphetamine. Handshoe gave a rambling, conflicting statement to Officer Strahl in which she admitted her own drug use and dealing. She initially denied Phillips's drug involvement but later reported Phillips had dealt and used drugs while she was staying at his home.

[4] Handshoe provided two written statements to Officer Strahl. One implicated Handshoe's drug supplier. Exs., pp. 5-6. The other statement, which incriminated Phillips, specified:

I've been at Brian's for 2 Days. Since then, he has given me meth. He smoke[d] a pipe while I hot railed it. He had me get a bag out of the drawer in the livingroom [sic] last night, there was a bunch in it. He has a container (glass) w/ a red lid on it. It has money and several bags of meth in it. Scales are in a Good-n-plenty box in the left drawer in the entertainment center in the livingroom [sic]. Bag w/dope in it left hand side of Couch in wifi wireless adapter Box. Rifle in the bathroom closet, inside of door of bedroom off of bathroom, handgun & ammo in TV stand in Main Bedroom. Address is 109 S. Hamsher Garrett, IN 46738. His full name is Brian Jennings Phillips.

Exs., p. 7.

[5] Officer Strahl then prepared an affidavit for a warrant to search Phillips's home. Based solely on Handshoe's statements, Officer Strahl alleged probable cause to believe that methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and other items used in narcotics dealing likely were located in Phillips's home. The affidavit alleged:

3. The investigation indicates that Methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and items used in the dealing of narcotics are probably located in Brian J. Phillips's ... downstairs apartment and basement ... of 109 South Hamsher Street, Garrett, Indiana 46738, in DeKalb County, Indiana.

4. There is probable cause to believe that this offense occurred and these things are in this location because Kathy Handshoe provided a written statement stating these items were inside of the residence.

*** 6. While interviewing Kathy about another drug house, she advised the male subject she was currently living with, Brian J. Phillips, has been giving her methamphetamine while she has been living at his residence. Kathy told me Brian also deals methamphetamine. She told me she knew this based on the fact he would make her go to the other room when other people arrived at the residence. Kathy told me she didn't want to get Brian into trouble.

7. Kathy told me she currently has a backpack which has several used syringes in a secret compartment inside the backpack. She advised the backpack was currently at the residence when she made this statement ....

8. Sgt. Blodgett spoke to Kathy in the interview room. Sgt. Blodgett obtained a written statement from Kathy that stated she and Brian were consuming methamphetamine in the living room of the residence, when he asked her to grab a bag out of the drawer. She stated when she opened the drawer, she observed a glass container with a red lid that money [sic] and several bags of methamphetamine. She also stated there were several scales in the Good-n-Plenty box in the entertainment center. She also stated there was a bag with "dope" on the left-hand side of the couch. She advised there is multiple firearms located throughout the entire apartment. Sgt. Blodgett drew a diagram of the residence while Kathy explained the layout of the apartment. Kathy provided the locations of the firearms in the home.

9. Kathy also wrote in the written statement that the male[’]s name is Brian Jennings Phillips and that his address is 109 South Hamsher Street.

***

11. Kathy Handshoe gave me information against ... her own penal interest that she has a backpack with several used syringes located in the ... secret compartment of the backpack. Kathy stated the backpack was located in the residence of 109 South Hamsher Street in Garrett, Indiana 46738.

12. Kathy Handshoe gave me the written statement attached and incorporated herein, which is under oath.

Exs., p. 3.

[6] Due to an oversight by Officer Strahl, only Handshoe's statement implicating a different alleged dealer—not her statement accusing Phillips—was attached to the affidavit. Id. at 5-6; Tr. Vol. II, pp. 93, 105.

[7] Officer Strahl's affidavit prompted the reviewing judge to issue a warrant to search Phillips's home. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 107, 127. During the search the next day, police recovered a digital scale with powdery residue on it, plastic bags approximately one inch by two inches in size, a shotgun, and a glass container with a red lid holding 18.15 grams of methamphetamine.

[8] The State charged Phillips with Level 2 felony dealing methamphetamine and Level 3 possession of methamphetamine. Phillips moved to suppress all evidence from the search, claiming the search violated both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution. App. Vol. II, pp. 83-84. He argued the warrant authorizing the search was not based on probable cause to believe Phillips possessed tools of the drug trade in his home. Id. After a hearing on the morning of Phillips's jury trial, the trial court denied the suppression motion. However, the court granted Phillips a continuing objection to the admission of evidence obtained through the search. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 78, 109-10; Tr. Vol. III, p. 141.

[9] The jury found Phillips guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Phillips to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 10 years for dealing in methamphetamine and 5 years for possessing methamphetamine. Phillips appeals, challenging only the admission of the evidence seized in the search.

Discussion and Decision

I. Search Was Not Illegal

[10] Phillips claims the search was illegal and, therefore, the evidence seized during it was inadmissible. A trial court has broad discretion to admit evidence and will be reversed on appeal only when it abuses that discretion. Peters v. State , 888 N.E.2d 274, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. When the evidentiary issue rests on the court's ultimate determination of probable cause and other constitutional claims, we employ a de novo standard but afford significant deference to the magistrate's decision. State v. Spillers , 847 N.E.2d 949, 953 (Ind. 2006) ; Govan v. State , 116 N.E.3d 1165, 1171 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[11] Phillips contends the search of his home was illegal—and the evidence it revealed inadmissible—because the search warrant affidavit was inadequate to justify issuance of the warrant. The affidavit, which essentially was Officer Strahl's application for the search warrant, relied exclusively on Handshoe's hearsay statements, which Phillips deems "uncorroborated" and "incredible." Appellant's Br., p. 9. Phillips also claims the warrant was defective because Officer Strahl omitted critical information from the affidavit.

[12] Phillips's arguments implicate both state and federal constitutional protections. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 protect the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable" searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV ; Ind. Const. art. I, § 11. These nearly identical constitutional provisions require law enforcement to obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before conducting home searches. Pavey v. State , 764 N.E.2d 692, 701 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

[13] In deciding whether probable cause to search exists, "[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In reviewing that decision, our task is to determine whether the affidavit provided the warrant-issuing judge with a "substantial basis" for finding probable cause. Id. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317.

A. Reliability of Handshoe's Statements

[14] Phillips first claims the trial court lacked a substantial basis for finding...