Scanland v. State

• Decision Date: 19 December 2019
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-790
• Citation: 139 N.E.3d 237
• Parties: Michael SCANLAND, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

139 N.E.3d 237

Michael SCANLAND, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-790

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED December 19, 2019

Attorneys for Appellant: Valerie K. Boots, Christopher Taylor-Price, Marion County Public Defender Agency – Appellate Division, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Mathias, Judge.

1] Following a jury trial in Marion Superior Court, Michael Scanland ("Scanland") was convicted of Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia and sentenced to forty days in jail. Scanland appeals and presents two issues, which we restate as: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that Scanland was not subject to custodial interrogation and that the statements he made to a parole agent were therefore admissible even though Scanland was not advised of his Miranda rights; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of drug paraphernalia found in Scanland's home following a search based on the statements Scanland made to the parole agent. Concluding that Scanland was not subject to custodial interrogation, we affirm.

Statement of Facts¹

[2] Scanland was convicted of murder in 1995. He was released on parole on December 22, 2016. The terms of his parole release agreement included the following:

[139 N.E.3d 240

5. ABUSE OF ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE – I understand that the following is a violation of my parole:

a) Being intoxicated, or

b) Using, possessing, or trafficking illegally in a controlled substance . Abuse of alcohol or drugs is not a defense for violation of the parole release agreement.

* * *

7. CRIMINAL CONDUCT – I will not engage in conduct prohibited by federal or state law or local ordinance .

* * *

9. HOME VISITATION AND SEARCH –

a) I will allow my supervising officer or other authorized officials of the Department of Correction to visit my residence and place of employment at any reasonable time .

b) I understand that I am legally in the custody of the Department of Correction and that my person and residence or property under my control may be subject to reasonable search by my supervising officer or authorized official of the Department of Correction if the officer or official has reasonable cause to believe that the parolee is violating or is in imminent danger of violating a condition to remaining on parole .

Ex. Vol., State's Ex. 1 (emphases added).

3] In January 2018, Scanland was living with his girlfriend Sandra Burrow ("Sandra") in Marion County, Indiana. Scanland and Sandra had issues with their neighbor, and the police were called to Scanland's home several times as a result. During one altercation, the neighbor, according to Scanland, threatened his life. Sandra called the police to report this, and the police investigated. Scanland later called the police himself to obtain the incident report number. The supervising officer on duty, Sgt. Stargel, told Scanland to go to Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") Northwest District Headquarters the following day and speak with Sgt. Grimes for assistance with mediating the dispute with his neighbor. Sgt. Stargel also advised Scanland to talk to his parole officer. Sgt. Stargel then emailed Sgt. Grimes about Scanland, an email that was later forwarded to another parole agent, Eric Vanatti ("Agent Vanatti"), who worked at the Northwest District Headquarters.

[4] The day after the incident with the neighbor, Scanland and Sandra went to the Northwest District Headquarters to speak with Sgt. Grimes. Believing that they were not getting proper assistance, Scanland and Sandra became upset. From his office, Agent Vanatti heard a man shouting and a woman crying. He got up to investigate and saw Scanland and Sandra causing the disturbance. Agent Vanatti was wearing a polo shirt and his badge. He asked Scanland to sit at a table in the lobby, but Scanland remained standing.

[5] Agent Vanatti asked Scanland to come to his office. There, Agent Vanatti asked Scanland to take a drug test, as Vanatti believed Scanland to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Scanland, who was still agitated, responded, "I'm not going to. I'm dirty," meaning that he had been using illicit drugs. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 25. When Agent Vanatti asked what drug Scanland had been using, he told Vanatti that he had been using methamphetamine. Id. at 174. Agent Vanatti told Scanland that he still needed to do a urine screen and took him to the restroom. Scanland, however, refused to submit to the test. Agent Vanatti therefore took Scanland back to his office, where Scanland confirmed yet again that he refused to submit to the drug screen. Agent Vanatti

[139 N.E.3d 241

then placed Scanland in handcuffs and began to complete a Department of Correction ("DOC") form titled "TRANSMITTAL – PAROLE BOARD ACTION," detailing Scanland's refusal to submit to the drug screen, his conflict with his neighbor, and requesting a warrant for Scanland's arrest. Ex. Vol., Defendant's Ex. D.

6] As Agent Vanatti typed up his report, Scanland stated, without prompting, that he had been using methamphetamine from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. that morning. He then asked Agent Vanatti to go to Scanland's home and retrieve the pipe he used to smoke methamphetamine. Scanland stated that the pipe was hidden inside a sock in a dresser drawer of his bedroom. Scanland wanted Agent Vanatti to get the pipe because he was afraid that Sandra might find it and was concerned for her health.²

[7] Agent Vanatti, two other parole agents, and an IMPD officer accompanied Scanland to his home. The officers searched for and found two pipes hidden in dresser drawers in Scanland's bedroom. One pipe was found inside a sock and the other inside a glove. The officers then obtained a warrant to search the home for drugs. Subsequent testing revealed the presence of methamphetamine residue on the pipes.

Procedural History

[8] On January 16, 2018, the State charged Scanland with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.³ Scanland filed a motion to suppress on July 2, 2018, claiming that the statements he made to Agent Vanatti were inadmissible because he had not been advised of his Miranda rights and that the evidence found during the subsequent search of his home was inadmissible as it was conducted due to his inadmissible statements. The trial court held a hearing on Scanland's motion on August 23, 2018, and entered an order denying the motion on November 1, 2018. Scanland filed a motion to correct error⁴ on November 27, 2018, which the trial court denied on January 18, 2019.

[9] A jury trial was held on March 11, 2019. At trial, Scanland objected to the introduction of his statements to Agent Vanatti and the admission of the drug pipes. The trial court overruled Scanland's objections, and the jury found Scanland guilty of possession of paraphernalia but not guilty of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Scanland to forty days in jail, with credit for twenty days already served.⁵ Scanland now appeals.

[139 N.E.3d 242

Standard of Review

[10] Because Scanland appeals following his conviction, and not from an interlocutory order denying his motion to suppress, the issue before the court is one of the admission of evidence. See Hicks v. State , 5 N.E.3d 424, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied . A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we will reverse the trial court's ruling only when the trial court abuses that discretion. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. Whether the challenge is made through a pretrial motion to suppress or by an objection at trial, our review of rulings on the admissibility of evidence is essentially the same, i.e. we do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, but we may also consider any undisputed evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Id. Additionally, we may consider foundational evidence introduced at trial in conjunction with any evidence from a suppression hearing that is not in direct conflict with the trial evidence. Id. At a suppression hearing, the State bears the burden of demonstrating the constitutionality of measures it used to secure evidence. McIntosh v. State , 829 N.E.2d 531, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied .

I. Scanland's Statements to the Parole Agent

11] Scanland claims that he was in custody and subject to the functional equivalent of interrogation and that he should therefore have been advised of his Miranda rights. Because he was not so advised, Scanland argues that his statements to the police should have been excluded.

[12] The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants to individuals the right to be free from self-incrimination. Hartman v. State , 988 N.E.2d 785, 788 (Ind. 2013) (citing U.S. Const. amend. V ("No person ......