Bailey, J.
The State of Indiana appeals the trial court’s suppression of evidence found during a search of the residence of Dusten Vance (“Vance”), based upon the trial court’s determination that the search warrant was issued without probable cause. The State contends that the warrant was supported by probable cause developed in a series of controlled buys and that, even if probable cause was lacking, the officers acted in good faith and the exclusionary rule should not apply. We affirm.
During April of 2018, Investigator Tyler Parks of the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office (“Officer Parks”), assisted by a confidential informant (“CI”), was involved in three state-sponsored buys of cocaine. On April 13, April 20, and April 23, 2018, CI was searched and provided with photocopied money. On each occasion, CI contacted an individual described by law enforcement as the “Target.” On the first occasion, Target went to a hotel before providing CI with cocaine. On the second occasion, Target went to a residence before providing CI with cocaine.
On the third occasion, Target was picked up at a residence and driven to a street corner, where he exited the vehicle and began to walk north. Target was under police surveillance at that time, but the visual surveillance was interrupted for a short time. When visual surveillance was restored, officers observed Target leaving Vance’s residence. Target provided CI with 1.5 grams of cocaine. Target was then taken back to the residence where he had been picked up.
Officer Parks executed an affidavit of probable cause for a search warrant of an address on Turner Street. He stated that “This house has an occupant of Dustin [sic] Vance aka (dustball).” The affidavit represented that members of the Delaware County Narcotics Unit had conducted “controlled cocaine purchases” and these were “from the same unnamed target.” The search warrant for Vance’s residence was granted and, upon its execution, officers found cocaine and marijuana.
The State charged Vance with Possession of Cocaine and Maintaining a Common Nuisance. Vance moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant, alleging that material facts had been omitted from the affidavit for a search warrant and the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. At the suppression hearing, conducted on July 5, 2018, Vance elicited evidence to show that he was not Target and Target had not been searched as part of the state-sponsored buys.
Vance argued that the affidavit for the search warrant omitted this material information and that the State had, in fact, conducted what was “really an uncontrolled buy.”
On July 6, 2018, the trial court issued its suppression order. Having found that Target was never searched, the trial court concluded:
[T]he officers had no knowledge of whether the target had the drugs on him when he entered into or exited from the locations to which he was directing the CI.
The target simply entering into a location does not establish that, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.
….
In this case, narcotics officers had been working with CI, who in turn contacted Target. Target was transported to, or near, three different locations on three different occasions. Target then supplied cocaine to CI. It is not known whether Target had cocaine on his person prior to visiting any of those locations, because he, unlike the CI, was never searched. It is not known whether Target acquired cocaine near the Turner Street residence he was seen exiting, since visual surveillance was interrupted. Nevertheless, the State claimed that the third transaction was part of a series of “controlled buys.”
“A properly conducted controlled buy will permit an inference the defendant had prior possession of a controlled substance.” Watson v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1291, 1293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). A controlled buy occurs when an undercover police officer or a private citizen acting as an agent of the police under strict police supervision and control purchases illegal drugs from a dealer.
….
The key to the controlled buy is that the police are always in control of the situation. But the instant circumstances were not those of a previously-searched buyer entering a residence. Police did not maintain strict control in this alleged tri-level (buyer-dealer-source) transaction where the alleged middle-man, who was not searched and did not act as an agent of police, moved about on his own volition and police surveillance was interrupted. And although the cocaine ultimately produced would arguably have been “attributable to the target,” see id., the sole connection between Target and Vance’s residence, the premises to be searched, was that Target was seen leaving the residence. Viewing someone exit a residence would not lead a reasonable person to “believe that a search of those premises will uncover evidence of a crime.” Esquerdo, 640 N.E.2d at 1019. The search warrant, not supported by probable cause, was invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
….
The evidence obtained at Vance’s residence was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and was properly suppressed.
Affirmed.
Brown, J., concurs.
Bradford, J., dissents with opinion.
Because I believe the search warrant was supported by probable cause, I respectfully dissent.
….
Given the totality of the circumstances set forth by the affiant, the trial court made a common-sense determination that there was a fair probability that controlled substances would be found in the Turner Street residence (“the Residence”) before issuing the warrant.
….
This evidence leads to the common-sense and logical inference that the Residence was used as a place to store controlled substances. Therefore, the trial court had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed before issuing the search warrant.