warrant requirement in Indiana

2017“One well- recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a voluntary and knowing consent to search.” Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957, 961 (Ind. 2001).

2016Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957, 961 (Ind. 2001). [9] In general, the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless search and seizure absent a valid exception to the warrant requirement.

2024See M.O. v. State, 63 N.E.3d 329, 331 (Ind. 2016) (“the State bears the burden to show that one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2020M.O. v. State, 63 N.E.3d 329, 331 (Ind. 2016). [11] One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is the emergency aid doctrine.

2020The State argues the continued police presence in the Wahls’ home and the recording fell under the exigency exception. [28] “The warrant requirement becomes inapplicable where the ‘exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2258 | May 12, 2020 Page 14 of 39 warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 935 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 393 -94, 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)).

2019Further, “[a]mong the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-627 | November 27, 2019 Page 15 of 17 exigencies that may properly excuse the warrant requirement are threats to the lives and safety of officers and others and the imminent destruction of evidence.” Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 937 (Ind. 2006). [37] The record indicates that Martin fired multiple shots, shot Waldroup, pulled him out of his car, threw him face down on the concrete, and left the scene with Hoefling.

2019When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search.’” Glasgow v. State, 99 N.E.3d 251, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 1998)). [14] “Encounters between law enforcement officers and public citizens take a variety of forms, some of which do not implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment and some of which do.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 261 (Ind. 2013).

2018When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search." Id. at 465 (citations omitted). [18] One exception to the warrant requirement was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968).

2016One exception to the warrant requirement is an inventory search of a properly impounded vehicle, Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. [1993]).

2001One well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is an inventory search of a vehicle See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ind.1993).

2019For a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant is required, id., and if a search is conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden to show that one of the “well-delineated exceptions” to the warrant requirement applies, M.O. v. State, 63 N.E.3d 329, 331 (Ind. 2016). [11] The State contends that the automobile exception applies to the facts of this case.

2019Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind. 2006). [14] One well-defined exception to the warrant requirement is the inventory search.

2025Fourth Amendment [20] Generally, “the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches, but there are exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind. 2005).

2019Moreover, [i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more." Pennsylvania v. Labron , 518 U.S. 938 , 940, 116 S.Ct. 2485 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996). [17] In Myers v. State , 839 N.E.2d 1146 , 1152 (Ind. 2005), our supreme court concluded: In light of the Supreme Court's recent emphatic statement in Dyson that the automobile exception 'does not have a separate exigency requirement,' 527 U.S. at 467 [ 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)], we conclude that this exception to the

2023Id. [20] The “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement allows police to search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.

2018When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search." Id. at 465 (citations omitted). [18] One exception to the warrant requirement was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed. 2d 889 (1968).

2020The State argues the continued police presence in the Wahls’ home and the recording fell under the exigency exception. [28] “The warrant requirement becomes inapplicable where the ‘exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2258 | May 12, 2020 Page 14 of 39 warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 935 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 393 -94, 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)).

2020The State argues the continued police presence in the Wahls’ home and the recording fell under the exigency exception. [28] “The warrant requirement becomes inapplicable where the ‘exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-2258 | May 12, 2020 Page 14 of 39 warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 935 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 393 -94, 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)).

2005Short v. State, 443 N.E.2d 298, 303 (Ind.1982).

1984Another exception to the warrant requirement for search and seizure is recognized where the law enforcement agents conducting the search have probable cause to believe the search will produce evidence that a crime has been committed and such exigent circumstances exist that "the societal costs of obtaining a warrant, such as danger to law officers or the risk of loss or destruction of evidence, outweigh the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate." Arkansas v. Sanders, (1979) 442 *17 U.S. 753, 759, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2591 , 61 L.Ed.2d 235 ; see Short v. State, (1982) Ind., 443 N.E.2d 29

2015White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind.2002). *134 [22] One such exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest.

2008However, we need not address whether the "plain feel" exception applies here, [3] as we conclude that the evidence seized pursuant to the pat-down search is admissible pursuant to the exception to the warrant requirement that evidence is admissible when it is seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest. [4] See White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408, 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) ("A search incident to a lawful arrest is one such exception [to the warrant requirement].").

2009"Rather than employ federal concepts like the warrant requirement and probable cause requirement, we require instead that the State bear the burden of showing that, in the totality of the circumstances, the intrusion was reasonable." [ Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332, 337 (Ind.1999)].

2009"Rather than employ federal concepts like the warrant requirement and probable cause requirement, we require instead that the State bear the burden of showing that, in the totality of the circumstances, the intrusion was reasonable." [Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332, 337 (Ind.1999)].

2019“Where a search or seizure is conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden to prove that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search or seizure.” Brooks v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1234, 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. [20] Officer Ramos encountered Harris at the Marathon gas station when he responded to a dispatch that a person was “unresponsive in a vehicle, possibly sleeping, or under the influence of drugs.” Tr.

2018“Where a search or seizure is conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden to prove that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search or seizure.” Brooks v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1234, 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (2011). [13] Encounters between law enforcement officers and citizens take a variety of forms, not all of which implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

2023Id. [11] One exception to the warrant requirement is the so-called Terry stop, which is “a brief investigatory stop falling short of traditional arrest.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 263 (Ind. 2013).

2023Id. [14] One exception to the warrant requirement is the so-called Terry stop, which is “a brief investigatory stop falling short of traditional arrest.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 263 (Ind. 2013).

2019“However, on occasion the public interest demands greater flexibility than is offered by the constitutional mandate of the warrant requirement.” State v. Straub, 749 N.E.2d 593, 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).

2018“A principal protection against unnecessary intrusions into private dwellings is the warrant requirement imposed by the Fourth Amendment on agents of the government who seek to enter a residence for the purposes of search or arrest.” State v. Straub, 749 N.E.2d 593, 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). [9] Deel challenges the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit to support the trial court’s finding of probable cause to issue the warrant.

2024First, the police found the gray Chevrolet in the motel parking lot, a place readily accessible to the public and not generally thought of as a place normally used as a residence.”); United States v. Ervin, 907 F.2d 1534, 1538-1539 (5th Cir. 1990) (observing that the defendant’s “trailer falls squarely under Carney: (1) it was not parked in a place regularly used for residential purposes but in a motel parking lot; (2) [the defendant] and his wife were not occupying the trailer as a home; and (3) it was readily mobile” and concluding that, “under Carney, the automobile exception to the warrant

2024Thayer, 904 N.E.2d 706 (quoting Hill, 195 F.3d at 264 ). [15] Although the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement “allows police to search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if they have probable cause to believe Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-54 | October 2, 2024 Page 7 of 18 evidence of a crime will be found there.” See Moore v. State, 211 N.E.3d 574 , 579 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010)).

2016“When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search.” Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind.1998) (citing Brown v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 443 (Ind.1998)).

2012See Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind.1998) (citing Brown v. State, 691 N.E.2d 438, 443 (Ind.1998)).

2018Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). [22] One exception to the warrant requirement is a protective search for weapons during a lawful stop, often called a Terry pat-down or Terry frisk.

1996“The warrant requirement commands that an agent of the government obtain a search warrant from a neutral, detached magistrate prior to undertaking a search of either a person or private property, except under special circumstances fitting within ‘certain carefully drawn and well-delineated exceptions.’” Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49, 54 (Ind.1995), reh’g denied (quot *758 ing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514-15 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)).

2019Moreover, [i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more." Pennsylvania v. Labron , 518 U.S. 938 , 940, 116 S.Ct. 2485 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996). [17] In Myers v. State , 839 N.E.2d 1146 , 1152 (Ind. 2005), our supreme court concluded: In light of the Supreme Court's recent emphatic statement in Dyson that the automobile exception 'does not have a separate exigency requirement,' 527 U.S. at 467 [ 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)], we conclude that this exception to the

2019Moreover, [i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more." Pennsylvania v. Labron , 518 U.S. 938 , 940, 116 S.Ct. 2485 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1996). [17] In Myers v. State , 839 N.E.2d 1146 , 1152 (Ind. 2005), our supreme court concluded: In light of the Supreme Court's recent emphatic statement in Dyson that the automobile exception 'does not have a separate exigency requirement,' 527 U.S. at 467 [ 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)], we conclude that this exception to the

2024The court found the facts similar to those in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), and that the search of the pickup truck could not be justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

2024The court found the facts similar to those in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), and that the search of the pickup truck could not be justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

2007“However, ‘on occasion the public interest demands greater flexibility than is offered by the constitutional mandate’ of the warrant requirement.” Straub, 749 N.E.2d at 597 (quoting Rabadi v. State, 541 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Ind.1989)).

2001Rabadi v. State, 541 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Ind.1989).

2023“When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search.” Bradley, 54 N.E.3d at 999 (quotation marks and citations omitted). [21] One such exception relevant to the circumstances in this case is that the law enforcement officer had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that medical assistance was needed, or persons were in danger[.]” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 , 130 S. Ct. 546, 549 , 175 L.

2020Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 509 (7th Cir. 2003) (relying on Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 , 98 S.Ct. 1816 , 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978)). [19] “One well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a voluntary and knowing consent to search.” Bradley v. State, 54 N.E.3d 996, 999 (Ind. 2016).

2024“However, permitting the exception to apply where the vehicle may be expected to be found would open the door to warrantless searches where there is no reason to avoid the judicial oversight contemplated by the Fourth Amendment.” Id. [21] The Indiana Supreme Court has held: In light of the Supreme Court’s recent emphatic statement in [Maryland v.] Dyson that the automobile exception “does not have a separate exigency requirement,” 527 U.S. [465,] 467, 119 S. Ct. [2013,] 2014 [(1999)], we conclude that this exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment does not require any add

2013The United States Supreme Court later made. clear that separate exigent circumstances are not required for the automobile exception to apply because “[t]he mobility of automobiles ... ‘creates circumstances of such exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible.’ ” California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 , 105 S.Ct. 2066, 2069 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406, 413 (1985) (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 , 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3096 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000, 1004 (1976)); see also Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67 , 119 S.Ct. 2013, 2014 , 144

2018Id.; Malone, 882 N.E.2d at 786 .

2014Id.