## Facts

- In March 2005, a sheriff’s deputy investigated suspected marijuana trafficking at George Membres III’s residence.
- A confidential informant reported seeing a known drug dealer at the house and stated he was “pretty sure” Membres dealt large quantities of marijuana; the deputy described the informant as reliable based on extensive prior use and convictions resulting from tips.
- Police surveillance corroborated suspicious activity, including a vehicle associated with a suspected drug dealer at the residence.
- On the scheduled collection day, the deputy seized trash left in a public area for pickup and searched it, finding marijuana cigarette ends, marijuana, plastic baggies with missing corners, rolling-paper packaging, and mail addressed to Membres.
- Based on the trash evidence and investigation, police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for marijuana and other controlled substances, currency, records/documents (including computer evidence) indicating controlled-substances violations, paraphernalia, scales, packing materials, and weapons.
- During execution, officers seized cash, marijuana, paraphernalia, firearms, watches/jewelry, cell phones, and documents.
- The State obtained a court order authorizing transfer of certain seized property to federal authorities for forfeiture proceedings.
- Membres moved to suppress the search evidence (challenging the trash search and warrant breadth) and sought to stay the property transfer; the trial court denied suppression and approved turnover (stayed pending appeal).

## Issues

1. Whether the Indiana constitutional rule requiring “articulable individualized suspicion” for warrantless trash searches applies retroactively to a trash search conducted before that rule was announced.
2. Whether the warrant to search Membres’s residence was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular, or was unconstitutionally overbroad.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held the individualized-suspicion requirement for warrantless trash searches does not apply retroactively to searches conducted before it was announced.
- The Court evaluated the trash search under preexisting standards and did not suppress evidence on that ground.
- The Court held the search warrant was supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.
- The Court held the warrant’s item descriptions were sufficiently particular and not an impermissible general warrant.
- The Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and the related rulings favoring the State.

## Legal Principles

- A new state constitutional rule regulating police investigative procedures may apply prospectively when it does not affect the reliability of the truth-finding process at trial.
- Probable cause for a search warrant is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, including reliable informant information, corroborating police observations, and contemporaneous physical evidence connecting suspected contraband to the place to be searched.
- A warrant is not overbroad if the categories of items to be seized are reasonably connected to the suspected offense and sufficiently limit officer discretion, even when the offense (e.g., drug distribution) commonly involves cash, records, packaging materials, and weapons.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court declined to apply a later-announced trash-search limitation retroactively and upheld the residential search warrant because the investigation and trash evidence established probable cause and the warrant’s scope remained tied to evidence of drug trafficking rather than authorizing a general search.


Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2008)