In determining whether an affidavit provided probable cause, any doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
Particularly, Smith claims that the State failed to identify a nexus between Smith's admission to the hospital with a gunshot wound and Myers' shooting. [9] Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution require probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
When reviewing a magistrate's decision to grant a search warrant, “the duty of the reviewing court is to determine whether the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis' for concluding that probable cause existed.” Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 840 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 426 U.S. 213, 238–39 (1983)). “Although we review de novo the trial court's substantial-basis determination, we nonetheless afford significant deference to the magistrate's determination as we focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support that determination.”
It is well settled that when the State fails to "make any trial court challenge to standing, the government may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal." Everroad v. State, 590 N.E.2d 567, 569 (Ind. 1992) (citing Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 209 (1981); United States v. Ford, 525 F.2d 1308 (10th Cir. 1975); Wildberger v. State, 536 A.2d 718, 723 n.7 (1988); Williams v. United States, 576 A.2d 700 (D.C. 1990)); Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (quoting Everroad, 590 N.E.2d at 569). Thus, the State waived any standing challenge for our review by failing to raise the issue below.
In determining whether to issue a search warrant, "the issuing magistrate's task is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Bradley v. State , 4 N.E.3d 831, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The duty of the reviewing court is to determine whether the magistrate had a "substantial basis" for concluding that probable cause existed.
The affidavit provided probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. See Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (stating that "[a]lthough one particular piece of evidence may not have conclusively established probable cause, the evidence in the affidavit, when fitted together and viewed collectively, is sufficient to support the trial court's finding of probable cause under both the United States and Indiana Constitutions.") (footnote omitted).
The State must raise a defendant's lack of standing to the trial court in order to preserve it for appeal. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The State did so here.
The State must raise a defendant's lack of standing to the trial court in order to preserve it for appeal. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The State did so here.
A defendant aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of prejudicial evidence secured by the search of a third person's premises has not suffered infringement upon his or her Fourth Amendment rights. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. [17] In this case, when Detective Rimstidt questioned Cole, he "denied any involvement with the drugs."
He points out the analysis under our State's constitution focuses not only on the defendant's interest in the premises searched, but also on his possessory interests in any property seized. Bradley v. State, 4 N.E.3d 831, 839 (Ind.Ct.App.2014). [12] At this point, however, Sidener's argument becomes strained.