IN: Warrantless arrest in home on 21 day old information violated state constitution

Warrantless arrest in the home on a 21 day old controlled buy violated the Indiana Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment is not even considered. State v. Foster, 950
N.E.2d 760 (Ind. App. 2011):

In this case, the police had a high degree of concern that a violation had occurred. Foster challenges the propriety of his arrest, but he does not dispute that the detectives had probable cause to arrest him based on the controlled buy. Nevertheless, the degree of intrusion in this case was also high. Foster had an expectation of privacy in his apartment. See id. (noting that the defendant had an expectation of privacy in his home). Gigli awakened Foster and his girlfriend, summoned them to the front door, and convinced them to open the door through subterfuge. Once Foster opened the door, the detectives entered, handcuffed Foster, and searched the apartment. Finally, law enforcement needs did not require Gigli and Reed to enter Foster’s apartment without a warrant. Twenty-one days had elapsed since the controlled buy, and there is no evidence that exigent circumstances called for an immediate arrest. There was ample time and opportunity for the officers to obtain an arrest warrant. In fact, the detectives obtained an arrest warrant after Foster was in custody. Balancing the three factors set forth in Litchfield, under the totality of the circumstances the officers’ warrantless entry and in-home arrest of Foster was unreasonable and violated Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. See Trotter v. State, 933 N.E.2d 572, 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (determining that the officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s barn violated the Indiana Constitution where the degree of the officers’ intrusion was high and there were no exigent circumstances to justify the intrusion).

The question then becomes whether the statements in Gigli’s car and at the police station should be suppressed. …

The search warrant for defendant’s clenched buttocks was issued with probable cause. The officer had encountered defendant doing that once before with cocaine hidden there, and he averred that defendant was clenching his buttocks and refused to relax when told to do so. Abbott v. State, 950
N.E.2d 357 (Ind. App. 2011).*