Split justices uphold warrantless search, seizure of van in drug possession case

Indiana Supreme Court justices split Thursday in a decision concerning a Boone County man’s drug-possession convictions that were previously reversed by an appellate court that found the warrantless search of his car following a crash violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Justice Mark Massa wrote the majority opinion that affirmed the trial court’s original judgment on the search.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer in the state’s appeal of a Boone County case involving James Combs, whose drug possession convictions were partially reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals last summer. The lower appellate court found that the warrantless search of Combs’ van violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Officers found drugs when they searched Combs’ van after they followed a fluid trail from the site of a crash that led to the damaged van in his driveway.

After that search, Combs was subsequently charged with numerous drug possession and operating while intoxicated counts. The Boone Superior Court denied Combs’ motion to suppress after concluding the officers had probable cause to believe the van was connected to criminal activity and therefore could seize the van without a warrant.

Indiana Supreme Court justices were divided on the issue presented in Combs’ case, with Justice Geoffrey Slaughter concurring in judgment with a separate opinion and Justice Christopher Goff dissenting.

The majority justices agreed with the trial court that the van’s seizure and search was lawful in James Combs v. State of Indiana, 20S-CR-616.

The high court concluded police lawfully seized Combs’ van as evidence under the Fourth Amendment’s plain view exception, concluding its three requirements were satisfied. The majority determined the police lawfully viewed Combs’ van, the van’s incriminating character was immediately apparent, and the police had a lawful right of access to the van.

Additionally, the majority found that once seized, the police lawfully inventoried Combs’ van.

“The officers followed the written policy. They conducted a thorough inventory and detailed their discoveries, including the pills, on the necessary form before towing the van. … While the inventory was conducted on Combs’ driveway … the policy required an inventory before the van was released to the towing service, and it was reasonable for it to occur there,” Massa wrote for the majority.

Although agreeing that the trial court’s judgment should be affirmed, Justice Slaughter noted that his reasonings were different than that of the majority.

“Rather than reach the merits of Combs’s constitutional claims, I would hold that he waived those claims and thus did not satisfy his burden on appeal of establishing that the inventory search of his vehicle was illegal,” Slaughter wrote in a separate opinion.

“The Court holds, rightly, that Combs waived his state constitutional claim,” Slaughter continued. “I would go further and hold that he waived his Fourth Amendment claim, too. The entirety of his federal constitutional argument consisted of the following sentence: ‘This Court should reverse the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress based on the law and factual circumstances in this case, notwithstanding Lieutenant Mount’s rationale that requesting a warrant is ‘a pain in the ass.’’”

But in a dissent, Justice Goff argued that the plain-view doctrine didn’t justify the police’s seizure of the van and that the evidence obtained from the inventory search was inadmissible. Specifically, he questioned what need exists to seize the entire van when the driver admitted to the offense and when police thoroughly documented the structural damage to the van with photographs.

“In my opinion, there is none,” Goff opined, writing that he would reverse Combs’ convictions and remand for further proceedings.

“Because the State failed to show that the van itself would prove useful in solving a crime, and because the Court’s decision today will unnecessarily extend the government’s reach into our private lives, I respectfully dissent.”