Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

649 N.E.2d 120

State v. Foreman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 12, 1995

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1995-04-12

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1997

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The argument that the police believed they had valid consent to search the premises would be more persuasive had they asked the presumed consenting party to unlock the door rather than taking the door off its hinges to gain entry.... The requirement of a search warrant is intended to protect all from unreasonable searches. The present case highlights the importance of obtaining a warrant when In the present case, first hand possible. information concerning the activities in the subject room was obtainable with a minimal police investigation. The police already suspected illegal gaming in the room, having received several tips. There were numerous customers and workers at the Bingo Plaza that had access to the room and were familiar with the activities therein. An undercover agent could have obtained access with little apparent difficulty. The prudent steps of obtaining a warrant would have prevented the illegal search problem.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Foreman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BAKER, Judge,

¶1dissenting.

¶2I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority's analysis of the law under Rodriguez, I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that the police held a reasonable belief that they had obtained Ogletree's valid consent to search the locked room containing the gambling equipment.

¶3Inherent in the trial court's findings is that it did not believe that the police held a reasonable belief that they had obtained valid consent to search the locked room. Specifically, the trial court stated:

The argument that the police believed they had valid consent to search the premises would have been more persuasive had they asked the presumed consenting party to unlock the door rather than take it off of the hinges to gain entry.

¶4I am persuaded by the trial court's reasoning that had the police reasonably believed that they had obtained valid consent to search the room, they would not have removed the door from its hinges when they could have simply asked Ogletree, who was standing nearby, for a key to unlock the door. Because we, as a reviewing court, are prohibited from reweighing the evidence or judging the eredi-bility of the witnesses, I cannot agree, as the majority contends, that the evidence in this case is without conflict and that all reasonable inferences in this case lead to a conclusion opposite to that of the trial court. Therefore, because I believe that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the warrantless search fell within an exception to the warrant requirement, I would affirm the trial court's order granting Foreman's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the State's warrantless search.

/649/ne2d/120 · .json · Public domain