Appeals court reverses suppression of evidence in stolen gun case

The grant of a motion to suppress all evidence found in a man’s home during a search by police has been reversed, with the Indiana Court of Appeals finding a reasonable probability for law enforcement to believe that a stolen gun would be there.

After an investigation of two firearms stolen by Cody Putnam led police to Michael Stone – who had purchased one of the guns, a Sig Sauer handgun, from Putnam – law enforcement received and executed a search warrant for Stone’s home. Stone was known to the Cass County Drug Task Force and had prior convictions for dealing methamphetamine and a felony handgun charge.

The search resulted in the discovery of multiple firearms, though not the stolen gun, as well as drugs and $6,000 in cash. Stone was arrested at the scene for possession of methamphetamine and later charged with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, as well as Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor theft.

However, the Cass Superior Court granted Stone’s motion to suppress all of the evidence seized as a result of the search warrant, expressly determining that “[t]he analysis of the facts in this case is controlled by the Indiana Supreme court’s holding in State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006).”

But the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing with the state that the warrant was supported by probable cause and that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. Specifically, the appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s finding that Putnam’s statements to law enforcement were not declarations against penal interest.

“Nothing about Putnam’s admissions indicates that he was attempting to shift blame, downplay his role in the offenses, or curry favor with the police. Rather, we find his statements to be true declarations against his penal interest, subjecting him to criminal liability and demonstrating that he was a credible source of information. The trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress based on Spillers,” Judge Robert Altice wrote for the appellate court.

“Alternatively, Stone argues that even crediting Putnam’s statement, there was insufficient probable cause for issuance of the warrant because the State failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the Sig Sauer and his residence,” Altice wrote “… Here, Putnam indicated that Stone purchased the Sig Sauer from him three weeks earlier for $400 and that Stone liked the gun and wanted to keep it for himself. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for Detective (Joseph) Nies to believe that the stolen gun would be found at Stone’s home.”

Thus, the COA reversed and remanded.

The case is State of Indiana v. Michael Stone, 20A-CR-421.