Rush v. State
Citation | 881 N.E.2d 46 |
Decision Date | 19 February 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 35A02-0709-CR-772.,35A02-0709-CR-772. |
Parties | Karen RUSH, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Jeremy K. Nix, Matheny, Michael, Hahn & Denman, Huntington, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Arturo Rodriguez II, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellant-defendant Karen Rush appeals her conviction for Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor,1 a class A misdemeanor. Specifically, Rush argues that her conviction must be reversed because the police officers' warrantless entry onto her property was unreasonable and no exigent circumstances existed. Rush further claims that the subsequent search of her residence violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because she had not consented to the search. As a result, Rush contends that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence that was seized following the police officers' warrantless search of her property. Finally, Rush argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On March 25, 2007, at approximately 12:15 a.m., Huntington County Sheriffs Deputy Chad Hammel and Indiana. State Trooper Jamie Hotchkiss received a report of an underage drinking party at Rush's residence. As a result, Trooper Hotchkiss contacted other officers for assistance, requesting that they meet him in the identified neighborhood. When the officers arrived in Rush's subdivision, they parked their police vehicles and began walking toward Rush's house. At some point, the officers noticed a "young male" approach them. Tr, p. 70. However, the individual subsequently turned around and started to run. Deputy Hammel stopped the individual and asked whether "there was an underage drinking party going on [at Rush's house]." Id. at 36, 47. After the suspected juvenile responded affirmatively, Trooper Matt Teusch continued walking toward Rush's house and approached a teenage boy who was leaning against a vehicle in Rush's driveway. As the teen ran toward Rush's backyard, Trooper Teusch chased him. Trooper Teusch detected the smell of alcohol on the youth's breath after stopping him.
At that point, some of the officers saw several empty beer cans in Rush's front yard. Trooper Teusch then heard some commotion in Rush's backyard and saw someone crawling out of Rush's basement window. The individual stopped after Trooper Teusch ordered him to do so. As the officers stood in the backyard, they looked through the basement window and noticed other suspected juveniles in Rush's house and beer and liquor containers. Trooper Hotchkiss then saw other juveniles run into Rush's house through the front door. As a result, he went around the house to intercept anyone who was attempting to flee.
Thereafter, several troopers knocked on Rush's back door. When Rush opened the door, she acknowledged to Trooper Hotchkiss that she was the homeowner. Rush then told the officers that they could come inside. Trooper Hotchkiss asked Rush if she knew what was going on, and she responded that she "saw a few beer cans but ... didn't think anything of it." Id. at 66. The officers then summoned the occupants from the basement for a "head count." Id. at 54. Trooper Hotchkiss then walked through the house and found three teenage girls hiding in the basement closet. Trooper Hotchkiss also saw an empty case of Keystone Light beer, empty beer cans, and a number of liquor bottles in the basement.
While Trooper Teusch was in the living room, he noticed that some of the individuals from the initial "head count" were missing. Id. at 74. Trooper Teusch then heard a noise upstairs and found one of the missing juveniles hiding in a closet. The officers subsequently administered portable breath tests to all of the individuals, which revealed that thirteen of them had consumed alcohol. Rush's seventeen-year-old daughter was one of those individuals.
As a result of the incident, the State charged Rush with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a class A misdemeanor. Thereafter, Rush filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the officers lacked the authority to enter Rush's "curtilage, exceeding the areas upon which visitors would be expected to be invited." Appellant's App. p. 14. Rush also claimed that the police officers' warrantless entry and subsequent search of the premises violated her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, Rush alleged that the police officers improperly obtained the evidence during the investigation and subsequent search of her residence and that as a result, the evidence must be suppressed. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and following a bench trial that concluded on August 14, 2007, Rush was found guilty as charged. She now appeals.
Rush first contends that all of the evidence that the police officers obtained during their investigation was inadmissible because the police officers improperly entered her yard and the curtilage of her home. More specifically, Rush maintains that the officers' entry into "the curtilage of [her] home without probable cause and without being in hot pursuit of a felon, and peering through Defendant's windows while in the rear of the home were all in violation of [her] rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."" Appellant's Br. p. 6. Thus, Rush argues that the trial court erred in admitting "all evidence obtained after the officers entered the back of her property." Id. at 19.
We initially observe that the standard used to review rulings "on the admissibility of evidence is effectively the same whether the challenge is made by a pre-trial motion to suppress or by a trial objection." Burkes v. State, 842 N.E.2d 426, 429 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), trans. denied. We will not reweigh the evidence, and we consider the conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. However, we will also consider any uncontested evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Id. We will affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Id. Moreover, the trial court's ruling will be upheld if it is sustainable on any legal theory supported by the record, even if the trial court did not use that theory. Gonser v. State, 843 N.E.2d 947, 950 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).
The Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches. Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128, 132 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the privacy and possessory interests of individuals by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ind.Ct. App.2002). The "touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness," and reasonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996).
If a warrantless search is conducted, the burden is on the State to prove that, at the time of the search, an exception to the warrant requirement existed. Id. That is, searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable, subject to a few well-delineated exceptions. Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426, 432 (Ind.Ct. App.2002). Whether a particular warrantless search, violates the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Joe, 693 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct. App.1998).
This court has determined that the protection afforded to curtilage is justified on the basis of familial and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most high. Rook v. State, 679 N.E.2d 997, 999-1000 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). However, the mere fact that a legitimate police investigation allows items within the curtilage to be seen does not automatically transform a warrantless observation or inspection into an unconstitutional search. Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798, 801 (Ind.2006). Moreover, our Supreme Court has determined that the existence of exigent circumstances falls within the exception to the warrant requirement. Snellgrove v. State, 569 N.E.2d 337 (Ind.1991). Such circumstances are present when: 1) a suspect is fleeing or likely to take flight in order to avoid arrest; 2) incriminating evidence is in jeopardy of being destroyed or removed unless an immediate arrest is made; and 3) hot pursuit or movable vehicles are involved. Id. at 340. In essence, the warrant requirement becomes inapplicable when the "`exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 936-37 (Ind.2006) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)).
As noted above, the police officers responded to a report that an underage drinking party was occurring at Rush's residence. Tr. p. 53. When the officers walked toward Rush's house, an individual—suspected to be underage—saw the officers and began to run away. Id. at 55. Once the suspected juvenile stopped in front of Rush's home, he told the officers that an underage drinking party was occurring inside. Id. at 36, 47. Shortly after that encounter, Trooper Teusch questioned another teenager, who had been leaning against a vehicle in Rush's driveway. Trooper Teusch testified that the youth smelled of alcohol. Id. at 71, 77.
Notwithstanding Rush's claim that the officers lacked the authority to enter her property, we note that Indiana Code section 7.1-5-7-7 defines a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McAnalley v. State
...I, section 11 a liberal construction in favor of protecting individuals from unreasonable intrusions on privacy." Rush v. State , 881 N.E.2d 46, 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). Our Supreme Court explained in Litchfield v. State , 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005) as follows:In sum, although we recog......
-
J.K. v. State
... ... 13. The trial court concluded the entry was “reasonable ... based on the concern for the safety and security of [the] juveniles.” Appellant's App. at 18 (citing Rush v. State, 881 N.E.2d 46 (Ind.Ct.App.2008)). Rush involved an underage drinking party; however, the facts were much different. In Rush, the officers responded to a report of an underage drinking party. When they arrived, they observed several teenagers attempting to flee, and the officers ... ...
-
Montgomery v. State
... ... For a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant is required unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. The State bears the burden of proving that at the time of a warrantless search an exception to the warrant requirement existed. Rush v. State, 881 N.E.2d 46, 50 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). The propriety of a warrantless search is subject to de novo review. Engram v. State, 893 N.E.2d 744, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. denied ... The State offered exigent circumstances as the basis for the warrantless search. See ... ...
- TROTTER v. State of Ind., 29A02-0910-CR-974.