In Heuring v. State (Case No. 19S-CR-528), the Indiana Court of Appeals explored the concept of probable cause when considering the requirements for a search warrant.

The Court of Appeals found that the search warrants for Defendant’s home and father’s barn were invalid because the affidavits did not supply probable cause that a missing GPS device police had planted on Defendant’s vehicle was stolen. The affidavits were so lacking in probable cause that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply; thus evidence seized from both the initial search and subsequent search must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Law enforcement obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on Defendant’s car. When the device stopped transmitting information and the officers could not determine why, they obtained a warrant to search Defendant’s home and his father’s barn for evidence of the device’s theft.

During those searches, officers discovered drug evidence and obtained additional warrants on that basis. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the initial search warrants were invalid because the affidavits did not supply probable cause that the GPS device was stolen. Specifically, the affidavits lacked information that any control over the device was knowingly unauthorized or that there was intent to deprive the sheriff’s department of the tracker’s value or use. The affidavits were so lacking in indicia of probable cause that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. In so holding, the Court noted the exclusionary rule is also meant to deter “reckless” conduct by police and that the search here was based on nothing more than a hunch that a crime had been committed and was reckless.