Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Stanley L. Campbell Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 02S03-1010-CR-604 DAMION J. WILKINS, v. STATE OF INDIANA,

In the

FILED
May 10 2011, 10:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

Appellant (Defendant below),

Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________

Interlocutory Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, No. 02D04-0812-FB-221 The Honorable John F. Surbeck, Jr., Judge _________________________________ On Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 02A03-0910-CR-451 _________________________________ May 10, 2011 Dickson, Justice.

Facing charges of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Serious Violent Felon as a Class B felony and Possession of Marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor, the defendant, Damion J. Wilkins, sought to suppress evidence obtained when police executed a search warrant. The trial court denied his motion, and he was permitted to take this interlocutory appeal from the denial. The Court of Appeals reversed. Wilkins v. State, 930 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). We granted transfer and now affirm the denial of his motion to suppress.

Seeking reversal of the trial court's ruling, the defendant's appeal asserts three claims: (a)

lack of basis for a trash search, (b) lack of probable cause for the search warrant, and (c) violation of the federal and state constitutional provisions against unreasonable search and seizure because the warrant was executed without police knocking and announcing their presence. The Court of Appeals resolved the first two claims against the defendant but concluded that the "noknock" execution of the search warrant under the circumstances violated the Indiana Constitution and required suppression of the evidence. Id. at 663. We granted transfer to address this last claim and now summarily affirm the Court of Appeals as to all other issues. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

This interlocutory appeal is a companion appeal to one brought by Wilkins's codefendant, Cornelius Lacey. Both co-defendants sought suppression of the evidence resulting from the no-knock execution of a warrant for the search of the residence in which they were located. Our opinion in Lacey's appeal is issued contemporaneously with this opinion. Lacey v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011).

The defendant presents three arguments to support his challenge to the no-knock entry. One of these is his contention that the exigent circumstances should have been first presented to a neutral and detached judicial officer to determine if the circumstances justified a no-knock entry and search. As addressed more fully in our opinion today in Lacey, we reject this argument. The police were not required to present known exigent circumstances and obtain specific judicial authorization before executing a no-knock entry.

Secondly, the defendant asserts that the no-knock execution of the warrant, even if permitted under the federal and state constitutions, nevertheless violated Indiana Code

Download Damion J. Wilkins v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law