Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER

FILED
Oct 23 2009, 9:54 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

Attorney General of Indiana CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM H. NOLAN, Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0903-CR-215

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable James Osborn, Judge Cause No. 49F15-0803-CM-51624

October 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Judge

The State appeals the trial court's pre-trial order suppressing evidence discovered when Officer Brady Ball arrested William Nolan pursuant to an arrest warrant. For our review, the State raises a single issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred when it granted Nolan's motion to suppress. Concluding the uncontradicted evidence does not support the trial court's findings and its order is contrary to law, we reverse. Facts and Procedural History On March 3, 2008, Officer Ball was conducting an interdiction investigation at the America's Best Inns and Suites motel near Interstate 465. Officer Ball conducted such investigations as part of his regular duties. Officer Ball obtained the motel's guest registry, compared the names on the registry with the registrations of vehicles in the parking lot, and reviewed police reports for the associated names. The guest registry for room 105 contained Nolan's name, date of birth, and driver's license number. Using this information, Officer Ball was able to connect Nolan to a vehicle in the parking lot. Officer Ball also requested police records for Nolan using his date of birth and describing him as a white male. Officer Ball discovered an outstanding warrant for a person named "William Nolan" with the same date of birth. The warrant provided a social security number and described William Nolan as a black male with black hair, brown eyes, a height of five feet and nine inches, and a weight of two hundred and fifty pounds. Officer Ball next reviewed Nolan's driver's license information using the driver's license number he obtained from the guest registry. The driver's license number was issued to a person named "William Nolan" with the same date of birth and social security number as 2

listed in the arrest warrant. The driver's license also contained the same height and weight description as the arrest warrant; however, the driver's license described William Nolan as having brown hair and blue eyes and did not indicate Nolan's race. Because of the disparity in physical descriptions, Officer Ball contacted the control operator to verify the information in the arrest warrant because the control operator had access to more detailed information than he could receive through his in-car computer. The control operator's information confirmed the name, date of birth, and social security number in the arrest warrant matched the information on the driver's license. At the suppression hearing, Officer Ball testified, "originally, I wasn't sure, because it was a black male. And, what I did, is I used the ... social security numbers to verify the warrant

Download State of Indiana v. William H. Nolan.pdf

Indiana Law