Riley, J.
Statement of the Case
Appellants-Plaintiffs, Jennifer Jones (Jennifer) and Jamaal Jones (Jamaal) (collectively, Jones), appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress the evidence discovered during a warrantless search of their residence.
We affirm.
Issues
Jones raises three issues on appeal, which we restate as:
(1) Whether the warrantless search of Jones’ residence is justified based on the exigent circumstances to conduct a welfare check on three minor children left unattended in the home in the middle of the night; …
….
Facts and Procedural History
This case comes before us as an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of Jones’ motion to suppress. In October of 2014, Jennifer and Jamaal lived with Jennifer’s three children, who were six, nine, and twelve, near the Butler University campus in Indianapolis, Indiana. On October 20, 2014, around 1:08 a.m., Officer Chris Nelson (Officer Nelson) of the Butler University Police Department (BUPD) initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Jennifer just south of 42nd Street and Capitol Avenue. … Officer Nelson conducted a probable cause search of the vehicle and located a marijuana blunt in the ashtray and “several pills that were identified as a controlled substance in a personal bag belonging” to Jennifer. (Tr. p. 23). Officer Nelson placed Jennifer under arrest.
….
As soon as she was placed under arrest, Jennifer asked, “What about my children? They’re home alone[.]” (Tr. p. 24). Officer Nelson informed her that officers would be sent to the house to check on the children and make arrangements for their safety. …
….
Upon his arrival at the residence, Officer Nelson knocked and announced his presence. … As soon as Officer Nelson walked in the residence, he could smell “an extremely strong odor of raw marijuana in the air. …
….
…A search warrant was obtained and executed several hours after the children had been located and removed from the residence. In the course of executing the search warrant, the marijuana and lighting equipment were seized.
On October 22, 2014, the State filed an Information charging Jennifer with dealing in marijuana, a Level 6 felony; possession of a narcotic, a Level 6 felony; neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony; possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. The State charged Jamaal with dealing in marijuana, a Level 6 felony; possession of a narcotic, a Level 6 felony; neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony; and possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor. On November 12, 2014, Jones filed a motion to suppress, which was amended on December 4, 2014. On April 23, 2015, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the amended motion to suppress. On July 9, 2015, the trial court issued its ruling from the bench, denying the amended motion to suppress.
On August 17, 2015, the trial court certified its order for an interlocutory appeal, which this court accepted. …
….
II. Exigent Circumstances
… Jones contends that the trial court erred when it determined that the BUPD officers had properly entered the residence in the middle of the night to check on the welfare of the minor children based on the exigent circumstances exception of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable search and seizure, and this protection has been extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957, 961 (Ind. 2001). As such, warrantless searches and seizures inside the home are presumptively unreasonable. Buckley v. State, 797 N.E.2d 845, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Nonetheless, there are limited exceptions to the warrant requirements under the Fourth Amendment. Collins v. State, 822 N.E.2d 214, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. A well-recognized exception is the existence of exigent circumstances. Id. …“However, a police officer’s subjective belief that exigent circumstances exist is insufficient to support a warrantless search.” United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910 (2000). Rather, “as is normally the case for Fourth Amendment inquiries, the test is objective: ‘the government must establish that the circumstances as they appear at the moment of entry would lead a reasonable, experienced law enforcement officer to believe that someone inside the house, apartment, or hotel room required immediate assistance.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300, 1304 (7th Cir. 1993)). …
….
In cases like the one before us which involve older children, Jones would have us require the officers to obtain specific corroborating evidence of a serious, life-threatening injury before entering the residence. …We cannot find many situations more urgent than three children left alone in their home in the middle of the night without any certainty as to when a responsible adult might next enter the house. … We conclude that the State established both exigency and an objectively reasonable belief that the children were in need of aid. Therefore, the officers’ warrantless entry of Jones’ residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Campos, 885 N.E.2d at 596.
….
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that (1) the warrantless search of Jones’ residence is justified based on the exigent circumstances to conduct a welfare check on three minor children left unattended in the home in the middle of the night; (2) the officers permissibly entered the basement because the children were not yet located; and (3) BUPD’s action fell within the extended jurisdiction provide by the Trustees Resolution. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Jones’ motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Najam, J. and Robb, J. concur