Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed a man’s drug-related convictions Friday after finding officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when searching for and seizing evidence from his backyard without a warrant.
On Aug. 18, 2021, the Logansport Police Department responded to a call from Patricia Sanchez stating that she had issues getting her belongings from a house where Patrick Hinton resided.
According to court records, Sanchez claimed Hinton was threatening to shoot her if she came to the house.
According to Sanchez, the owner of the house, Carol Zook, wanted Hinton to move out and was too fearful to kick him out.
Two officers arrived at the house around 3 a.m.
One approached the front door while the other went to the back.
Officer Branson Eber saw Hinton sitting on a chair in the backyard. When he shined his flashlight on him, Hinton stood up, dropped something and asked who’s there.
Hinton approached the officer with his hands behind his back and asked him to show his badge.
Eber shined the flashlight on himself for Hinton to see he was an officer.
During that time, Officer Joseph Flory was approaching the front door when Eber radioed that he found Hinton in the backyard.
When Flory met them in the backyard, he thought Hinton seemed “erratic… as if he was intoxicated” but calmed down once he knew they were police officers.
They informed Hinton they were just there to do a welfare check on Zook.
Hinton then took them back to the front door where he knocked and yelled for Zook. She answered the door but did not exit the house. The officers felt that Zook was alright and while Flory talked to Hinton, Eber went to the backyard.
Eber found “a glass smoking device containing white crystal residue which was burnt on the bottom and right next to it an orange Bic lighter.”
The officers then arrested Hinton. He was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
Hinton moved to suppress Eber’s seizure of the items on the grounds that the officer’s entry into the backyard without a warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
The Cass Superior Court denied his motion and moved forward with a jury trial, where Hinton objected to the admission of the evidence on the same grounds.
The trial court overruled his objection stating that it believed Eber’s entry into the backyard was justified by exigent circumstances and the plain-view doctrine.
Eber testified that he went to the backyard to make sure there wasn’t a weapon.
The jury found Hinton guilty as charged and he was sentenced accordingly.
Hinton appealed and argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the glass smoking pipe, with its white crystal residue which was seized without a warrant.
Hinton brought two issues on appeal, but the appellate court only addressed one.
The court looked at whether the state’s seizure of evidence from Hinton’s backyard without a warrant violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“There was no reason that Officer Eber could not have monitored the scene while seeking a warrant. Thus, Officer Eber’s entry into Hinton’s backyard was not justified by exigent circumstances,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote.
Mathias wrote that there was no emergency in the situation.
There was also nothing in the record that demonstrated probable cause that Eber had plainly viewed evidence of a crime prior to his entry onto Hinton’s property.
“And, by that time, the Fourth Amendment violation was established. As there is no dispute that Hinton’s convictions cannot be affirmed without the illegally seized evidence, we reverse his convictions,” Mathias wrote.
Judges Nancy Vaidik and Rudoph Pyle concurred.
The case is Patrick Hinton v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-107.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.