United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE
cause is before the Court on Defendant Douglas Veach's
Motion to Suppress Evidence (Dkt. No. 85). Specifically,
Veach seeks to suppress the evidence that was seized on
August 6, 2015. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on
Veach's motion on November 29, 2017. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d), the Court now states its
findings and conclusions. For the reasons explained herein,
Veach's Motion to Suppress Evidence is
August 6, 2015, Douglas Veach was arrested by detectives in
Putnam County, Indiana. Two issues are before the Court: (1)
whether there was a valid warrant for Veach's arrest, and
(2) whether the search of a duffel bag was unconstitutional.
At the evidentiary hearing held by the Court, the Government
presented testimony from two witnesses and introduced six
Mayhugh, a state parole agent with the Indiana Department of
Correction in Marion County, testified at the hearing.
Mayhugh has been a parole agent for adult offenders since
2006, and he currently is assigned to Veach's case.
Veach's former parole agent was Brian Matthys, but
Veach's case was transferred to Mayhugh because of
Veach's pending criminal cases in federal and state
explained that when a parolee is arrested for a new case or a
new criminal case is filed against a parolee, a report and
request for a warrant is sent to the Indiana Parole Board
(“Board”). The report includes the initial parole
violation, which consists of the court case if it is
available, or, if the case is not available, the arresting
officer's report or probable cause affidavit. The Board
reviews the report and request to see if a case has been
filed and how serious the allegations are. If the Board
determines that a warrant should issue, the Board sends a
warrant to the parole agent.
parolee is being held in jail, the parole agent sends the
warrant to the jail where the parolee is being held. The
parole agent in the county where the parolee is being held
will serve the warrant on the parolee. A copy of the warrant
is given to the jail. After the warrant is lodged, the parole
agent will clear the warrant from the National Crime
Information Center (“NCIC”).
to the specifics of Veach's case, Mayhugh testified that
in July 2014, a warrant was requested for Veach because of a
pending criminal case that Veach had in Hendricks County. The
Court admitted Government's Exhibit 4, a copy of the
warrant for retaking offender issued for Veach by the Indiana
Parole Board on August 4, 2014. Mayhugh explained that
Exhibit 4, the warrant for retaking Veach, did not have a
delinquency date listed because Veach was not delinquent;
that is, he had not failed to report to his supervising agent
when the warrant was issued. The Court also admitted
Government's Exhibit 5, a copy of the transmittal filled
out by Matthys on July 31, 2014, and signed by a member of
the Board on August 4, 2014, which had a recommendation that
a warrant be issued for Veach, and the initial parole
violation submitted by Matthys to the Board.
warrant depicted in Exhibit 4 was served by a parole agent on
Veach while Veach was at the Hendricks County Jail. Mayhugh
explained that the warrant was sent to an agent at Parole
District 1 and a copy was faxed to the Hendricks County Jail.
When a warrant for parole is issued for the arrest of someone
who is in jail, the parole agent follows the case and the
parole warrant is put in the person's jacket at the jail.
If the person posts bond on the underlying case, the jail
should contact either the parole district the jail is in or
contact the parole office to have the person transferred back
to a Department of Corrections facility.
proper protocol was not followed in Veach's case. After
Veach's arrest in July 2014 in Hendricks County, he
posted bond in the Hendricks County case. Veach also had a
pending case out of Boone County. Before the Hendricks County
jail moved Veach to Boone County, jail personnel looked in
Veach's jacket to ensure that the warrant was still
there. Jail personnel went to NCIC and did not see the
warrant. They then erroneously marked in the jacket that the
warrant was not valid. However, the warrant was no longer
present in NCIC because a warrant is removed after it is
served; the fact that the warrant was no longer in NCIC did
not mean that it was no longer valid. Jail personnel should
have contacted Mayhugh's office to inquire whether the
warrant was still valid.
his release from Hendricks County, Veach was transported to
Boone County for another warrant on an unrelated case. Veach
posted bond from the Boone County case. Because Boone County
jail personnel did not have a copy of Veach's parole
warrant due to Hendricks County's mistake, Veach was
released on January 13, 2015. After being released, Veach did
not report to parole, and parole did not know where he was.
In fact, parole believed that Veach was still in Hendricks
County Jail; no one in the parole office knew that he had
been released. The parole office finally learned that Veach
had been released when a prosecutor from Hendricks County
went to speak with Veach about his case.
14, 2015, after the parole office learned that Veach had been
inadvertently released, a transmittal was sent to the Board
requesting that the warrant be amended for Veach.
See Gov. Exhibit 3. On that same date, the Board
issued an amended warrant for Veach based on this transmittal
and request. See Gov. Exhibit 2. The parole office
also made attempts to find Veach. The reissued warrant showed
up as active in the NCIC database on the date it was
Adams, a detective with the Lebanon Police Department who is
assigned to the Hamilton/Boone County Drug Task Force, also
testified at the hearing. Adams' testimony was relevant
to both the warrant issue and the duffel bag issue. Adams
explained that Veach had become the target of an
investigation. Adams was unable to recall how he first
learned that there was an active warrant for Veach, but he
had learned of the active warrant in July 2015. ...