exigency requirement in Indiana

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

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

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

2013Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s 7 conclusion in Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999), that “the automobile exception ‘does not have a separate exigency requirement,’” the Myers Court held that “a vehicle that is temporarily in police control or otherwise confined is generally considered to be readily mobile and subject to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement if probable cause is present.” Myers, 839 N.E.2d at 1152 (quoting Dyson, 527 U.S. at 467 ).

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

2016Meister, 933 N.E.2d at 879 (citing California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 569 , 111 S. Ct. 1982 (1991)); see also Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 , 116 S. Ct. 2485, 2487 (1996) (“If Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1601-CR-148 | December 20, 2016 Page 10 of 23 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.” (citing Carney, 471 U.S. at 393 , 105 S. Ct. 2066 )). [22] The Indiana Supreme Court has held: In light of the Supreme Court’s recent emphatic st

2017Id. at 996 ; see Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception). [10] We initially note that sufficient probable cause existed for the police to believe that evidence of a crime—namely, the unidentified driver’s involvement in a hit and run as well as the driver’s vehicle registration—would be found in Burton’s vehicle.

2003See also Justice v. State, 767 N.E.2d 995, 996 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) ("[Tlhe Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception."); Cody v. State, 702 N.E.2d 364, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ("An automobile may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.").

2017Id. at 996 ; see Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426, 432 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception). [10] We initially note that sufficient probable cause existed for the police to believe that evidence of a crime—namely, the unidentified driver’s involvement in a hit and run as well as the driver’s vehicle registration—would be found in Burton’s vehicle.

2002As this court has more recently explained in Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), the Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception.

2025Id. at 854-856 , 139 S. Ct. at 2537-2538 (footnotes omitted). [34] The Court concluded: When police have probable cause to believe a person has committed a drunk-driving offense and the driver’s unconsciousness or stupor requires him to be taken to the hospital or similar facility before police have a reasonable opportunity to administer a standard evidentiary breath test, they may almost always order a warrantless blood test to measure the driver’s BAC without offending the Fourth Amendment.

2023United States v. McMillion, 472 Fed.Appx. 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2012).

2023The Tenth Circuit found that “if marijuana possession is the only crime Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2581 | August 3, 2023 Page 18 of 31 for which the officers in this case had probable cause, the exigency exception for destruction of evidence should not apply because marijuana possession is not a serious crime.” United States v. Mongold, 528 Fed.Appx. 944, 950 (10th Cir. 2013). [41] The Third Circuit found that the imminent destruction of evidence justified a warrantless entry into an apartment when a marijuana smell was in the building’s hallway and increased when the apartme

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)).

2003See also Justice v. State, 767 N.E.2d 995, 996 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception."); Cody v. State, 702 N.E.2d 364, 366 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998) ("An automobile may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.").

2003See also Justice v. State, 767 N.E.2d 995, 996 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) ("[Tlhe Fourth Amendment does not require a separate exigency requirement for the automobile exception."); Cody v. State, 702 N.E.2d 364, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ("An automobile may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.").