Brown, J.
Mario Deon Watkins appeals his convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance … and maintaining a common nuisance … Watkins raises two issues, one of which we find dispositive and which we revise and restate as whether the court abused its discretion or erred in admitting evidence discovered as a result of a search.
We reverse.
At some point, a confidential informant told Evansville Police Detective Chris Goergen that he had observed cocaine, marijuana, and a firearm at a residence in Evansville. …
On December 17, 2014, Detective Goergen completed an affidavit for a search warrant, which alleged that cocaine and other evidence was being concealed in or about the premises and curtilage located at 314 W. Illinois Street in Evansville.
Detective Goergen relayed the address, the names of the persons who were possibly inside the building, and that there was a firearm and cocaine seen inside at some point the day before to the assisting investigators and the Evansville SWAT team.
The SWAT team rode in a Lenco Bearcat that followed a patrol vehicle to the residence. At least a dozen officers were involved. … At 10:30 a.m., the police knocked on the residence and one of the officers announced, “Police – Search Warrant – Police – Search Warrant,” and another officer announced over a loudspeaker “Search Warrant. 314 Illinois.” … One second later, the SWAT team knocked down the door with a battering ram. …
Evansville Police Officer Jacob Taylor, a member of the SWAT team, had a GoPro camera attached to his helmet and recorded the entry. He was responsible for deploying a “flash bang,” which is a diversionary device that emits a bright flash and a loud bang.
… Officer Taylor set or “basically dropped” or tossed the flash bang … The device activated six inches inside the door and emitted a “pretty loud” noise and a flash of light. After the flash bang grenade was deployed, Detective Gray entered the residence and picked up a nine-month old baby crying on top of blankets in a playpen just inside and “very close to the door.” The room also contained a baby’s car seat and a toddler’s activity center in the line of sight of the front door. …
….
Watkins filed a motion to suppress on March 6, 2015 … He alleged that the seizure of the items was without lawful authority because the search was conducted pursuant to an invalid warrant, the manner of the search and execution of the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 11, 13, and 14 of the Indiana Constitution …
….
Watkins argues that the officers’ military-style assault that involved announcing their presence seconds before crashing through the door with a battering ram and then one second later tossing a flash bang grenade into the front room of the house, which contained only a nine-month old baby, was an unreasonable use of force in the execution of the search warrant. … He also asserts that the no-knock entry was unreasonable.
….
Regarding the degree of intrusion, we agree with Watkins’s characterization of the execution of the search warrant as a “military-style assault.” …
….
Comparing the factors, we conclude that while there was a considerable degree of suspicion, the extent of law enforcement needs for a military-style assault was low and the degree of intrusion was unreasonably high. … We conclude that the search violated Watkins’s rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence discovered as a result of the search.
….
Reversed.
Baker, J., concurs.
May, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Unlike my colleagues, I would hold the search of Watkins’ residence was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. I therefore respectfully dissent.
… Because the police were executing a search warrant on the home of a convicted violent felon believed to be in possession of a handgun and a large amount of illegal drugs, I would conclude the law enforcement need was high.
In light of the manner in which the search warrant was executed, I conclude the degree of intrusion into Watkins’ privacy was high, but not “unreasonably” so. …
… Accordingly, I see no error in admitting the evidence gathered pursuant to the search warrant in Watkins’ criminal trial, and I respectfully dissent.