The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches, stating:
“The right of the people to be secure in their person, 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 persons or things to be seized.” U.S. CONST.AMEND. IV.
Therefore, if police wish to search a residence, vehicle, or object, they must obtain a valid search warrant signed by a judge. To get a search warrant granted, the police officer must present a judge with an affidavit that lays out facts supporting probable cause that the place or item to be searched will either contain or be linked to criminal activity.
The police officer’s assertions in the search warrant affidavit must be based on tangible facts and cannot be the officer’s or a witness’s own conclusions. An officer’s hunch, instinct, or gut feeling all fall short of establishing probable cause. Indiana case law mandates that a mere suspicion of a crime does not suffice for the requirement of probable cause. Instead, there must be specific evidence linking the object of the search warrant to criminal conduct. Banks v. State, 231 N.E.3d 853, 860 (Ind Ct. App. 2024).
A simple example highlighting the difference between tangible facts supporting probable cause versus an officer’s hunch regarding criminal activity is illustrated in Woods v. State.
In Woods, a police officer observed the defendant wearing a blue surgical shirt, commonly known as a “scrub.” The officer was also made aware that the defendant had been wearing a different colored scrub the previous day. The officer noted that the scrubs contained an ink marking that identified the scrubs as belonging to a hospital supply company, and that scrubs bearing these marks are not given to the general public. Based on this information, the officer applied for a search warrant of the defendant’s residence to search for stolen property. The state court judge granted the search warrant, apparently reasoning that there was probable cause that the defendant’s scrubs were stolen property.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judge’s ruling, finding that there was a complete lack of probable cause that the defendant had committed a crime or that his residence was linked to criminal activity. The search warrant affidavit was devoid of any information indicating that the defendant had stolen the scrubs or knew that the scrubs were stolen.
The Court of Appeals stated that “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.” Woods v. State, 514 N.E.2d, 1277, 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987). The Court of Appeals further reasoned that “if we were to conclude the possession of an item which is under 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.” Id.
The Woods case stands for the important principle that a police officer’s belief or suspicion is not enough to establish probable cause to search. The police officer’s affidavit must be grounded on facts that would allow a judge to make a reasonable independent determination that a crime has been or is being committed.
Are you or a loved one facing criminal charges as a result of evidence seized via a search warrant? Contact the experienced attorneys at Banks & Brower anytime at info@banksbrower.com or at (317) 870-0019.