Rotz v. State, 45A03-0709-CR-453
3rd Dist.; 10-06-08, Ind.App. 894 N.E.2d 989
Attorney: James E. Foster
Holding: Trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible when an affidavit in support of a search warrant is attacked as not showing probable cause on its face. However, where Defendant alleges that the affidavit contained misstatements and omissions, State may offer evidence to rebut such allegations. Here, in applying for search warrant, the officer filed an affidavit stating, in part, that: (1) a shipment from a company known to supply propagation, irrigation, lighting and various other products for marijuana grow operations was delivered to Defendant’s home; (2) Defendant has a criminal history including an arrest for possession of marijuana in Indiana and possession of narcotics equipment in Florida; (3) blinds were drawn and basement widows on the north and south side of Defendant’s home were covered. The officer also conducted a trash search in which he found marijuana stems and leaves, an empty container of Zig Zag rolling papers, and burnt hand-rolled marijuana cigarette butts. The fact that the officer failed to include in the affidavit that the shipment was received sometime in 2005 and the outcomes and dates of the arrests did not invalidate the warrant. The officer also alleged that marijuana grow operations continue for long periods of time, often several years. Although the shipment to Defendant’s house alone may not have constituted reasonable suspicion to search Defendant’s trash, Defendant’s prior arrests for drug offenses and the observation of Defendant’s windows being covered corroborated the shipment and established reasonable suspicion that Defendant was growing marijuana. Thus, the results of the trash search properly established probable cause for the search warrant. Held, judgment affirmed.
