Evidence found in Michigan that tied defendant to Indiana case properly admitted in Hoosier trial, COA rules

A man whose backpack was searched in Michigan and revealed evidence linking him to another crime in Indiana did not convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that the evidence should have been suppressed in his Indiana trial.

In March 2019, Martin’s Auto Clinic located in St. Joseph County was broken into and robbed of some change and a stereo system from a car parked inside the shop. Officers collected fingerprints at the scene and watched a video from the owner’s surveillance system that depicted a man climbing a fence to break into the shop.

The Mishawaka Police Department posted screenshots from the video online, and a local identified the man climbing the fence as Danzig Weed.

A week later, Weed was arrested in Michigan for an unrelated offense and was carrying a backpack the time that contained clothing. After Weed was read his Miranda rights, a detective searched his backpack, which contained clothes that matched those shown in the St. Joseph County surveillance video.

During the interview, the detective activated an electronic recording system. However, at some point after the interview had been completed, the recording system malfunctioned. Consequently, the entire system was replaced, and the recording was lost.

Weed was eventually charged in Indiana with Level 5 felony burglary, prompting him to file a motion to suppress the evidence from his backpack. The motion was denied and a jury found him guilty as charged.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the crux of Weed’s argument focused on Indiana Rule of Evidence 617 — specifically, because Weed claimed he did not consent to the search of the backpack, the only conclusive proof of his consent was the electronic recording of the interview. As the interview was not recorded, Weed argued the St. Joseph Superior Court should have excluded the evidence produced from the search, so the COA should reverse his conviction.

“In this case, there are two unambiguous exceptions to the rule requiring the electronic recording of custodial interrogations,” Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote Friday. “The first covers malfunctioning equipment due to a law enforcement officer’s unintentional failure to properly operate the recording equipment or a malfunction unknown to the law enforcement officers. The second occurs when the custodial interrogation is conducted by law enforcement officers from or in a place outside of Indiana.

“Here, the record reveals that the recording system in the Cass County Jail, unbeknownst to Det. (Tim) Schuur, malfunctioned to such a degree that it was replaced and that, as a result, the recording was lost,” the appellate judge continued. “Further, the custodial interrogation occurred in Michigan. The absence of any evidence indicating that the electronic recording system’s malfunction was intentional, known to Det. Schuur at the time of the custodial interrogation, or took place in Indiana makes the existence of these facts highly probable.

“In addition, each exception, standing alone, allows the trial court to admit the evidence in question,” Pyle concluded in Danzig James Weed v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-424. “As a result, we affirm the trial court’s decision.”