Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Keeylen v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 6, 2014

VICTOR KEEYLEN, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION 20. The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Judge. Cause No. 49G20-1106-FA-40850.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: TODD ESS Indianapolis, Indiana, STEPHEN GERALD GRAY Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, IAN MCLEAN, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.

MATHIAS, Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.

OPINION

MATHIAS, Judge

Victor Keeylen (" Keeylen" ) has filed a petition for rehearing of our opinion affirming the Marion Superior Court's denial of his motion to suppress. We grant Keeylen's petition to clarify one factual issue, but otherwise affirm our opinion in all respects.

In our original opinion, we stated that " Detective Graber submitted the probable

Page 841

cause affidavit to the very same trial court and trial judge who had been authorizing the GPS searches for over a year. It is unlikely that he thought that the omission of this information would mislead the trial judge." Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865, 877 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014).

In his petition for rehearing, Keeylen notes that the judicial officer who issued the search warrant did not issue all of the orders authorizing the GPS tracking. However, the Commissioner who issued the warrant did issue the final order authorizing the GPS tracking. Cf. Exhibits Vol., Defendant's Ex. A1, p. 3, B11, p. 11.[1] And the last four authorization orders were issued by this very same court, Criminal Division 11.[2] Id., Defendant's Ex. B8 - B11.

The point we made in our original opinion remains valid: it is unlikely that Detective Graber was attempting to mislead the judicial officer issuing the search warrant by omitting information regarding the GPS tracking because the same judicial officer who issued the search warrant had previously authorized the GPS tracking and was thus well aware of the GPS tracking.

Aside from this factual clarification, we affirm our original opinion in all respects.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and PYLE, J., concur.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.