## Facts

- Officers went to Casey Levenduski’s residence in connection with suspected marijuana activity; no one answered the door.
- Believing Levenduski might be fleeing, officers moved to the back of the property and discovered marijuana plants growing outdoors.
- A state police officer measured distances on the property and located two dead marijuana plants in a wooded area about twelve feet from a garage.
- Based on the outdoor marijuana observations, a deputy obtained a warrant authorizing a search of the premises for marijuana, hashish, and evidence of marijuana use, manufacture, or production.
- The warrant also included a broad clause permitting seizure of “any other item of contraband which are evidence of a crime.”
- During execution of the warrant, officers found Levenduski inside the home and seized items associated with methamphetamine manufacture.
- The record did not clearly establish that the methamphetamine-related items were discovered in plain view rather than through a broader search under the warrant.
- Levenduski moved to suppress the methamphetamine evidence; the trial court denied the motion, and he was convicted of methamphetamine-related felonies (and acquitted of marijuana possession).

## Issues

1. Whether probable cause based on outdoor marijuana plants established a sufficient nexus to search the interior of the residence for other contraband, including methamphetamine-related evidence.
2. Whether the warrant’s catch-all authorization to seize “any other item of contraband” satisfied the particularity requirement or functioned as an impermissible general warrant.
3. Whether the methamphetamine evidence was admissible under the plain-view doctrine despite uncertainty about how it was discovered.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court held the warrant was insufficient to justify an interior search for methamphetamine-related evidence because the affidavit tied suspected criminal activity to outdoor marijuana, not methamphetamine activity in the home.
- The catch-all “any other contraband” language was overbroad and could not expand the search and seizure authority beyond what the marijuana-based probable cause supported.
- The State could not rely on plain view because the record did not establish the doctrine’s requirements, and the officers were not lawfully positioned to discover meth evidence under a warrant lacking adequate scope for that search.
- The methamphetamine-related convictions dependent on the improperly seized evidence were reversed, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with suppression.

## Legal Principles

- A warrant requires probable cause establishing a nexus between the suspected offense (and items sought) and the specific place to be searched.
- Probable cause to search for evidence of one offense does not automatically authorize a search for evidence of unrelated offenses absent supporting facts in the affidavit.
- The Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution require particular descriptions of items to be seized sufficient to limit officer discretion; a broad catch-all contraband clause may be invalid if untethered to the affidavit’s probable cause.
- Plain view requires lawful presence and lawful access to the item, plus immediate apparent incriminating character; it cannot cure a search where the warrant does not lawfully authorize the scope leading to discovery.

## Conclusion

The court required a concrete factual link between the suspected marijuana cultivation and any interior search for different contraband, rejected an unbounded contraband catch-all as inconsistent with particularity limits, and ordered suppression of methamphetamine-related evidence seized under an unsupported warrant scope.


Levenduski v. State, 876 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)