State v. Spillers
| Decision Date | 23 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 48S02-0501-CR-5.,48S02-0501-CR-5. |
| Citation | 847 N.E.2d 949 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Respondent below), v. Heath A. SPILLERS, Appellee (Petitioner below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Christopher L. Lafuse, Nicole M. Schuster, Deputy Attorney Generals, Indianapolis, for Appellant.
Bryan R. Williams, Eisele Lockwood & Williams, Anderson, for Appellee.
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 48A02-0401-CR-76.
Heath Spillers was charged with dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony. The trial court granted Spillers' motion to suppress and on review the Court of Appeals reversed. We granted transfer to address the application of the rule declaring that an informant's "declarations against penal interest" are sufficient to establish the informant's credibility for the issuance of a search warrant.
In the early afternoon hours of February 5, 2003 Detective Earley of the Anderson Police Department executed a warrant to search the home of Aaron Craib. Detective Jake Brooks, also of the Anderson Police Department, assisted in the search. The detectives arrested Craib for either dealing in or possession of cocaine upon locating more than three grams of the drug in his home. Tr. at 4. After his arrest Craib informed the detectives that Heath Spillers was his drug source. According to Craib, he had been obtaining cocaine from Spillers since December 2002 and had done so over ten times, most recently earlier that day. Exh. at 5. Craib also gave the detectives the address at which Spillers was staying with his girlfriend and the make and model of Spillers' car.
Armed with this information Detective Brooks sought a warrant to search Spillers' home. A hearing for such purpose was conducted before a regularly sitting trial judge of Madison County. Detective Brooks testified concerning the information Craib relayed to him, and the judge issued the warrant. In pertinent part Detective Brooks testified as follows:
[Aaron Craib] has given statement to . . . being involved in the use and sells [sic] of cocaine. Specifically, he gave a statement about the person that he obtained the cocaine from . . . he received it about 4:30 P.M. today. During this transaction the person had approximately an ounce of cocaine on his person. The person we took into custody advised he bought a quarter of an ounce of cocaine from him today. Then he also bought a half of an ounce yesterday from this individual.
. . .
[Craib also] gave a statement advising that he has been obtaining cocaine from this person [Heath Spillers] since December of 2002. He advised that he has obtained the cocaine over ten (10) times from this person in the past, specifically 4:30 today. . . . [T]he person is from Fort Wayne, Indiana. He stays at the address listed in the search warrant with his girlfriend.
. . .
Mr. Craib has been to this apartment complex within the last couple of weeks. . . . Each time he has seen cocaine there.
Exh. at 4-6. The detective also testified that Craib informed the officers that Spillers was driving a 1994 white Pontiac and provided the license plate number. Id. at 5. Upon executing the search warrant, officers discovered a gym bag containing digital scales along with cocaine weighing approximately thirteen to fourteen grams. According to Detective Brooks, Spillers admitted the gym bag belonged to him.
Spillers was arrested and ultimately charged with dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony. Prior to trial he moved to suppress the cocaine. And following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order granting Spillers' motion. Although disagreeing with the ruling, the State did not timely request the trial court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal. Thus, the State thereafter filed a belated motion to certify which the trial court granted. After the Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction, the State filed a motion to nolle prosequi the charge because it could not "proceed on this cause without the evidence that was suppressed." App. at 57. The trial court granted the motion and thereafter the State appealed. On review the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. See State v. Spillers, 816 N.E.2d 67 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). In doing so the court examined conflicting Court of Appeals opinions on the question of when and under what circumstances hearsay statements may support probable cause for the issuance of search warrants. Having previously granted transfer we now reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In deciding whether to issue a search warrant, "[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). The duty of the reviewing court is to determine whether the magistrate had a "substantial basis" for concluding that probable cause existed. Id. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317. A substantial basis requires the reviewing court, with significant deference to the magistrate's determination, to focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support the determination of probable cause. Houser v. State, 678 N.E.2d 95, 99 (Ind.1997). A "reviewing court" for these purposes includes both the trial court ruling on a motion to suppress and an appellate court reviewing that decision. Id. at 98. Although we review de novo the trial court's substantial basis determination, we nonetheless afford "significant deference to the magistrate's determination" as we focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support that determination. Id. at 98-99.
Spillers moved successfully before the trial court to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search. Although he did not file a Brief of Appellee, Spillers essentially argued before the trial court that the facts presented to the issuing judge were insufficient to demonstrate probable cause for a search warrant because there was no evidence establishing Craib's credibility or corroborating his hearsay statements. Tr. at 9. The State responds that the detectives not only corroborated Craib's hearsay statements but also established his credibility because Craib's statements implicated him in the commission of a crime. Br. of Appellant at 4.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The text of Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution contains nearly identical language.2 These constitutional principles are codified in Indiana Code section 35-33-5-2, which details the information to be contained in an affidavit for a search warrant.3 Where a warrant is sought based on hearsay information, the affidavit must either:
(1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or (2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.
Ind.Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1) and (2).4
The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in a number of ways, including where: (1) the informant has given correct information in the past, (2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant's statements, (3) some basis for the informant's knowledge is demonstrated, or (4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Jaggers v. State, 687 N.E.2d 180, 182 (Ind. 1997). These examples however are not exclusive. "Depending on the facts, other considerations may come into play in establishing the reliability of the informant or the hearsay." Jaggers, 687 N.E.2d at 182. One such additional consideration is whether the informant has made "[d]eclarations against penal interest." Houser, 678 N.E.2d at 100.
There is no evidence in the record that Craib had given police correct information in the past. No such claim was made before the judge issuing the search warrant. And at the suppression hearing Detective Brooks testified that prior to February 5, 2003 he had not used Craib as an informant. Tr. at 6. Independent police investigation did confirm Craib's allegations concerning Spillers' address and the make and model of Spillers' car. But these facts are readily available to the general public. See Bradley v. State, 609 N.E.2d 420, 423 (Ind.1993) (); Sellmer v. State, 842 N.E.2d 358, 362 (Ind. 2006) (). More importantly they do nothing to corroborate Craib's assertion that Spillers was the source of the drugs found in Craib's possession. See State v. Mason, 829 N.E.2d 1010, 1017 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) ().
As for demonstrating some basis for Craib's knowledge that Spillers possessed drugs, Craib alleged that Spillers was his drug source. It is true that "`a statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zanders v. State, Supreme Court Case No. 15S01-1611-CR-571
...analysis before obtaining search warrants," much less anticipate redirection of the weight of authority on an issue. State v. Spillers , 847 N.E.2d 949, 958 (Ind. 2006) ; see also Leon , 468 U.S. at 922 n.23, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (identifying the question as "whether a reasonably well trained off......
-
Hoop v. State
...the officers reasonably relied on the magistrate's conclusion that the dog sniff was in accordance with the law. See State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 958 (Ind.2006) (after careful examination of existing case law, Court determined informant's statements were not against penal interest, bu......
-
State v. Flores
...not a true statement against penal interest, and therefore not indicative of the informant's reliability. See, e.g., State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 956–57 (Ind.2006) (where informant was caught with cocaine in his possession, revealing supplier did not subject him to additional criminal......
-
Membres v. State
...like federal Fourth Amendment doctrine, identifies deterrence as the primary objective of the exclusionary rule. See State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 957 (Ind.2006) ("The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct (quoting Hensley v. State, 778 N.E.2d 484, 489 (Ind.Ct.App.20......