Victor Keeylen v. State of Indiana , 21 N.E.3d 840 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • FOR PUBLICATION
    Nov 06 2014, 8:53 am
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    TODD ESS                                    GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Indianapolis, Indiana                       Attorney General of Indiana
    STEPHEN GERALD GRAY                         IAN MCLEAN
    Indianapolis, Indiana                       Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    VICTOR KEEYLEN,                             )
    )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                 )
    )
    vs.                              )       No. 49A05-1308-CR-419
    )
    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
    November 6, 2014
    OPINION ON REHEARING – FOR PUBLICATION
    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
    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
    1
    This judicial officer appears to be the Commissioner for Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 11.
    See 
    id. 2 The
    previous seven authorization orders were issued by Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 20,
    the court where Keeylen was tried and convicted. 
    Id., Defendant’s Ex.
    B1 – B10.
    2
    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.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A05-1308-CR-419

Citation Numbers: 21 N.E.3d 840

Filed Date: 11/6/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023