Woods v. State

• Decision Date: 17 November 1987
• Docket Number: No. 49A04-8612-CR-370,49A04-8612-CR-370
• Parties: Carl Darrick WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1277

514 N.E.2d 1277

Carl Darrick WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 49A04-8612-CR-370.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Fourth District.

Nov. 17, 1987.

John O. Moss, Robert G. Mann, Moss & Walton, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gary Damon Secrest, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

Carl Darrick Woods appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him of possession of paraphernalia, a Class A Misdemeanor, fining him $29.00, and ordering costs amounting to $71.00. Woods alleges the trial court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. Woods contends the affidavit offered in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause. We agree and reverse. ¹

FACTS

Lt. Frank Ingram, a police officer with the Indiana University-Purdue University The officers who executed the search found two pairs of surgical scrubs in Woods's bedroom. (Record at 61). They also found a package of hand-rolled cigarettes, a pair of surgical hemostats, and a pair of forceps burned on the end.

at Indianapolis police, was engaged in a narcotics surveillance on Meridian Street on July 17, 1985. From a distance he observed Woods, then a fellow police officer, parking a car in front of Woods's residence. He noticed that Woods was wearing a blue surgical shirt, commonly known as a "scrub," that appeared to bear an ink marking identifying it as property belonging to a hospital supply company. Lt. Ingram reported his observation to Capt. Rogers of his department who said he had seen Woods wearing green scrubs at the police station the day before. Based on this information Lt. Ingram that same day filed a probable cause affidavit requesting a search of Woods's residence, and a search warrant was issued.

On August 19, 1985, Woods was formally charged with violating the Indiana Uniform Substances Act, IND.CODE 35-48-4-11, and Possession of Paraphernalia, IND.CODE 35-48-4-11. Woods was not charged with theft or conversion of surgical scrubs. Before trial Woods filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but after a hearing, the court overruled the motion. At trial Woods objected to the admission of the evidence on the basis that the search of his residence was illegal. Woods moved for judgment on the evidence, but that motion also was overruled. The court found Woods guilty of Possession of Paraphernalia, but not guilty of Possession of Marijuana.

DISCUSSION

I. Probable Cause

The question presented--whether the magistrate had probable cause to issue a search warrant--concerns our fundamental right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided by our federal and state constitutions. The Fourth Amendment long ago established the minimum requirements to protect citizens from indiscriminate searches based on general warrants. Olmstead v. United States (1928), 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944. The Amendment provides the following guarantees:

"The 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 and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. CONST.AMEND. IV.

Our Indiana Constitution contains almost identical language. ² These great documents set forth the minimum standards under which our laws are to be enforced in order that all citizens may be secure from unwarranted invasions of their persons and homes.

In Indiana, except as specifically provided, no warrant can be issued until a magistrate has an affidavit before him. IND.CODE 35-33-5-2, Section 2(a). The affidavit must contain the essential facts to establish probable cause. Id.; Mann v. State (1979), 180 Ind.App. 510, 389 N.E.2d 352. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably reliable information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonably prudent man to believe that a crime had been or is being committed, and that seizable property can be found at the place or on the person to be searched. Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543. In other words, probable cause is a "reasonable ground for belief of guilt." Id. at 161, 45 S.Ct. at 288 (quoting McCarthy v. DeArmit (1881), 99 Pa. 63). But a good faith belief is not enough. That faith must be grounded in facts which in the judgment of a court make the good faith belief reasonable. Id.

In reviewing an affidavit our court has found the quantity and nature of information necessary to determine probable cause is inextricably linked to each given set of facts. Mers v. State (1985), Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d 778 (Buchanan, C.J., dissenting) (citing Layman v. State (1980), Ind.App., 407 N.E.2d 259). Our task is not to perform de novo review, Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, but to determine whether the affidavit provided a substantial basis of fact from which the magistrate could conclude that a search warrant would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Id. (citing Jones v. United States (1960), 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697). Although we must give deference to the magistrate where reasonable minds may differ whether an affidavit establishes probable cause, our deference may not be boundless. United States v. Leon (1984), 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677. We may not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not provide sufficient information from which a magistrate could determine probable cause. His decision cannot merely give formal sanction to the bare conclusions of others. Id.

In the case at hand our concern is whether the following affidavit, on its face, provided enough factual information to allow a detached and neutral magistrate to make a common-sense determination that probable cause existed to issue a search warrant. The affidavit stated:

LT. FRANK INGRAM, I.U.P.D., Indpls, Indiana swears or affirms that he believes and has good cause to believe--from my investigation I learned from reliable persons the following facts and attending circumstances that: on July 17, 1985, this affiant observed MR. CARL DARRICK WOODS, B/M/32, DOB 04/28/53, SSN 314-64-1853, who resides at 3630 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, Indiana, Marion County, Apt. # 19 at the southeast corner of 37th Street and Meridian Street, enter into a white/red Chevrolet, plate 49E9683, '85 issue, and park the vehicle at his residence located at 3630 N. Meridian Street at 1032 hours, today's date.

Mr. Carl D. Woods was in possession of a blue scrub top which contained what appeared at a distance to be ink marking identifying it as property belonging to United Hospital Services, which supplies these surgical gowns to hospitals in the Indianapolis area.

On July 16, 1985, Mr. Carl Woods was also observed by Captain C. Rogers of the I.U. Police Department, Indianapolis Division. Mr. Woods was seen at 430 N. Agnes Street wearing a green surgical top and pants.

The property marked with ink marking is controlled by hospitals throughout the Indianapolis area not given to the general public.

Request the search to include all rooms and closets in control of Mr. Woods at 3630 N. Meridian Street, Apt. # 19 where the stolen property may be found. This is to include living room, bathroom, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, and all closets and other areas where property may be found.

For this affidavit to be sufficient it must contain a substantial basis of fact from which the magistrate could form a reasonable belief Woods was in possession of scrubs that belonged to another and his possession was unauthorized. ³ It is readily apparent there is no basis to form the reasonable belief Woods's possession was unauthorized. Assuming one could reasonably infer Woods was in possession of scrubs that belonged to another, ⁴ to infer the possession was unauthorized would require information specifically indicating a basis for such an inference.

The affidavit provides no facts to indicate Woods was not authorized to have the scrubs. The affidavit is silent as to whether Woods is or is not a hospital employee. ⁵ There is no allegation a hospital has reported a theft of scrubs. There is not even any certainty the officer accurately identified the ink mark he says he saw. The affidavit states merely the scrub appeared at a distance--not upon a close reading--to bear an ink marking of United Hospital Services.

The remaining question then is whether the statement "[t]he property marked with ink marking is controlled by hospitals ... not given to the general public" leads one to form a reasonable belief the scrubs were stolen. ⁶ If we were to conclude possession of an item which is under the control of an industry and not "given" to the general public leads to the inference the item is stolen, we would be inviting the police to search virtually every home in America. Any bailee could have his home searched.

There are many instances in the course of day-to-day living in which a person may be in possession of an item under the control of another and not given to the general public. For instance, a McDonald's uniform would not necessarily be given to the general public. But, could we allow police to arrest a person or to search his home because the police saw that person wearing a McDonald's uniform on the street? Certainly not. Or, how would we treat a person, possibly an employee, driving a vehicle bearing the insignia of his employer? Or, a person in possession of a pen, button, or cup used for advertising by an industry which controls such items and does not give them to the general public? Or, a person who wears a uniform that is under the control of his employer and not given to the general public? Is there any...