Membres v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
889 N.E.2d 265 (2008)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Police investigated George Membres (defendant) for drug trafficking. A confidential informant had seen another drug dealer at Membres’s home and believed Membres kept large quantities of marijuana in the home. This informant had given police reliable information between 40 and 50 times in the past, leading to convictions on more than three occasions. Police surveilling Membres’s home observed a car belonging to a suspected drug dealer parked there. Relying on this information, one officer seized Membres’s trash from the curb on collection day, finding 25 burnt joints, marijuana, baggies with their corners cut off, two empty packs of rolling papers, and mail addressed to Membres. Police obtained a warrant to search the home and seized $57,060 in cash, marijuana, rolling papers, drug paraphernalia, firearms, Rolex watches and other jewelry, cell phones, and documents. The state (plaintiff) charged Membres with drug trafficking and initiated forfeiture proceedings for the seized cash, jewelry, and firearms. Membres moved to stay forfeiture and suppress the evidence. The trial court denied suppression but granted a stay pending Membres’s appeal. On appeal, Membres argued that the search was unlawful under Indiana caselaw released two weeks after the search.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Rucker, J.)
Dissent (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
