Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court held that a search warrant's catchall provision authorizing seizure of any other indicia of criminal activity was invalid because it granted police unbridled discretion to conduct a general exploratory search. The court declined to suppress evidence seized under the warrant's valid specific provisions, concluding that identification cards and driver's licenses fell within the warrant's description of lists of acquaintances. Warren's convictions were affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the search warrant was invalid as a general warrant because its catchall language gave police unbridled discretion to search for and seize items.
- Whether the invalid catchall provision required suppression of all evidence seized under the warrant or only evidence seized pursuant to that provision.
- Whether the identification cards and driver's licenses were seized under a valid, particularized description in the warrant.
Holdings
- The phrase authorizing seizure of "any other indicia of criminal activity including but not limited to books, records, documents, or any other such items" granted unlawful unbridled discretion and was invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
- An invalid catchall provision does not invalidate the entire warrant; evidence seized pursuant to valid, specific portions of the warrant need not be suppressed.
- The identification cards and driver's licenses were properly seized because they fell within the warrant's specific description of "lists of acquaintances."
- The state constitutional claim was waived because Warren did not argue that the Indiana Constitution required an analysis different from the federal Fourth Amendment.
Key quotations
“General warrants, of course, are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.” (760 N.E.2d at 609)
“We agree that the phrase "any other indicia of criminal activity including but not limited to books, records, documents, or any other such items" grants an officer unlawful unbridled discretion to conduct a general exploratory search.” (760 N.E.2d at 610)
“The infirmity of this catchall language does not doom the entire warrant, however, but rather only requires the suppression of the evidence seized pursuant to that part of the warrant but not the suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to the valid specific portions of the warrant.” (760 N.E.2d at 610)
Factual background
Police investigating two fatal shootings believed that Christopher Fox had been killed after a captive escaped and shot him and that another person was involved. They obtained a warrant to search Fox's apartment, which also listed Aaron Warren as an occupant. During execution of the warrant, police found identification cards and driver's licenses bearing the names of Aaron and Andrew Warren but displaying the same person's photograph; the discovery redirected the investigation toward Andrew Warren and ultimately led to his convictions.
Procedural history
Following a June 1999 incident involving two deaths, Warren was convicted in the trial court of two murders and conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of Christopher Fox's apartment. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the challenged identification cards and driver's licenses were seized under a valid, particularized portion of the warrant.