FIRELINE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jeremy D. Fireline appeals his conviction for Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. He contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence at trial that was seized pursuant to a search warrant.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On October 6, 2021, Deputy Chief Robert Baker of the Middlebury Police Department received messages via social media from an individual, an acquaintance, whom he had known for more than ten years. The individual informed Baker that Fireline, who had an outstanding arrest warrant, was living in an RV on property owned by Heather Witcher. In addition to Witcher's house, there were two RVs on the property, and the individual specifically described the RV in which Fireline was staying, including its location.

[4] The next morning, Baker and three other officers – Patrol Officers Roy Clements and J. Oswald with the Elkhart County Sheriff's Department and Sergeant Bryan Wodtkey with the Middlebury Police Department – went to Witcher's property to serve the arrest warrant on Fireline. Clements and his trainee, Oswald, went to the home to speak with Witcher, while Baker and Wodtkey focused their attention on the RV.

[5] As Baker approached the front of the RV, he noticed a “very strong, a chemical smell” that he associated through his training and experience to be indicative of the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Suppression Hearing Transcript Vol. II at 21. He immediately radioed his fellow officers on the scene, alerting them to the strong chemical odor and warning them to use caution. He then knocked on the door of the RV.

[6] Baker saw Fireline, whom he recognized from past dealings, look out the window of the door and “then disappear into the RV.” Id. at 20. Baker and Wodtkey heard loud movements and banging inside the RV, including what sounded like drawers slamming, as Baker repeatedly ordered Fireline to come out. After about 38 seconds, Fireline came out of the RV, closing the door behind him. Fireline was dressed only in shorts and appeared to Baker to be under the influence of methamphetamine. Fireline commented to Baker that he knew Baker would catch him. Baker arrested Fireline and placed him in his police vehicle.

[7] Thereafter, Baker and the other officers discussed obtaining a search warrant for the RV, as Witcher told them that Fireline had been living in the RV and paying her electric bill. Among other things, the officers discussed the chemical odor present at the scene and Fireline's furtive movements inside the RV prior to his arrest. Wodtkey volunteered to write the probable cause affidavit for a search warrant, so Baker sent him screenshots of the messages he had received from his source.

[8] In the meantime, Baker returned to check on Fireline in the police vehicle. Fireline pleaded with Baker to just take him to jail, implying that he did not want the officers to search the RV. When Baker asked Fireline about the chemical smell, Fireline said that he had been spray painting. Baker knew what he smelled, however, “was not spray paint.” Id. at 25.

[9] While waiting for the search warrant, which was issued a few hours later, Corporal Chad Hoien of the Elkhart County Sheriff's Department was called to the scene because he had special training dismantling methamphetamine labs. Upon his arrival, he “could smell a chemical smell that [he] associated with the odor of a methamphetamine lab.” Id. at 121. Upon receiving the search warrant, Hoien entered the RV wearing protective gear to ensure the area to be searched was safe. When he did not find an active methamphetamine lab, other officers entered to help execute the search warrant.

[10] Inside the RV, officers found a bag of methamphetamine weighing over 29 grams hidden under the mattress in the sleeping area near the front of the RV.¹ They also recovered over $9,000 in cash, boxes of plastic baggies, and a digital scale, along with identification and credit cards connected to Fireline.

[11] The State charged Fireline with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine (possession with intent to deliver involving at least ten grams of methamphetamine). Fireline filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from inside the RV, claiming that the search warrant was issued without probable cause. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

[12] Fireline's jury trial was held on June 19, 2023. He preserved his objection to the evidence at trial. The jury found Fireline guilty as charged, and the trial court subsequently sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison, with ten years suspended to probation.

[13] Fireline now appeals his conviction. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Standard of Review

[14] A trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence, and thus we review such rulings for an abuse of discretion, reversing only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights. Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014). “But when an appellant's challenge to such a ruling is predicated on an argument that impugns the constitutionality of the search or seizure of the evidence, it raises a question of law, and we consider that question de novo.” Id. at 40-41. Still, where the facts are disputed, we will not reweigh the evidence. Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045, 1050 (Ind. 2013) (“On any disputed issue of fact, we defer to the trial court's finding unless it is clearly erroneous; we will not reweigh the evidence.”). We will, however, “consider any substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant.” Id.

Discussion & Decision

[15] Fireline argues that the drug evidence was erroneously admitted at trial because it was discovered during a search that violated his Fourth Amendment rights.² Specifically, he challenges the issuance of the search warrant on two grounds: (1) the reliability of the hearsay information provided by the tipster was not properly established and (2) the probable cause affidavit contained materially false and misleading statements.

[16] “When deciding whether to issue a search warrant, the issuing magistrate must make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Gerth v. State, 51 N.E.3d 368, 372 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (cleaned up). On appeal, we are thus tasked with determining whether the magistrate had a “substantial basis” for concluding that probable cause existed for the search. Id. “A substantial basis requires us to focus on whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support the determination of probable cause, while giving significant deference to the magistrate's determination.” Id.

[17] Here, the probable cause affidavit submitted by Wodtkey specifically described the RV to be searched and provided in relevant part:

3. On 10/07/2021 at approximately 10:54am this officer, along with [Baker, Clements, and Oswald,] attempted an arrest warrant service at 52808 New York Drive, having intel, that Deputy Chief Baker received, that [Fireline] was staying in an RV on the property. The person that DC Baker received the information from is reliable and had given good information that was confirmed in the past. This person is also a family member of the property owners, and had personally observed Jeremy Dean Fireline on the property and in the RV. This person also advised DC Baker that Jeremy Dean Fireline had a large amount of drugs and firearms inside the RV. This person could not be specific as to what illegal substances were inside the RV.

4. Once on the property, Officers knock on the door of the Yellowstone RV. A white male came to the door of the RV and looked out, DC Baker and this officer immediately identified the male as Jeremy Dean Fireline, as we have both had numerous contacts with Mr. Fireline in the past, as well as viewing his BMV and booking photographs before the service of the warrant. Mr. Fireline immediately ran to the front of the RV and officers could hear lots of moving around inside the RV, possibly indicating that Mr. Fireline was trying to move things around or hide items. Mr. Fireline then came out of the RV, shutting and locking the door to the RV, then giving himself up, officers then taking him into custody for his warrant. Officers also detected a strong chemical smell coming from the RV, as all officers have had previous training and experience in recognizing this type of chemical smell to be consistent with the manufacturing of illegal substances, particularly methamphetamine.

Suppression Hearing Exhibits Vol. III at 4-5.

[18] We turn first to Fireline's claim that the hearsay tip referenced in paragraph three of the probable cause affidavit lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to support the issuance of a search warrant. Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure are partially codified in Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2, which governs the information that must be included in an affidavit for a search warrant. Gerth, 51 N.E.3d at 372. Relevant here, the statute provides:

When based on hearsay, the affidavit must either:

(1) contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or

(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.

I.C. § 35-33-5-2(b).

The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in a number of ways, including where: (1) the informant has given correct information in the past, (2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant's statements, (3) some basis for the informant's knowledge is demonstrated, or (4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted.

Gerth, 51 N.E.3d at 372 (quoting State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 954 (Ind. 2006)). These examples of ways to establish the reliability of hearsay, however, are not exclusive. Id. at 372-73.

[19] Fireline argues that the affidavit failed to establish the reliability of the information provided by tipster who led police to the RV. He notes that the record does not support the assertion in the affidavit that the tipster had provided good information in the past and, regardless, asserts that such a bare-bones statement falls short of the requirements to establish reliable hearsay.

[20] We agree that the tipster's credibility was not established by the generic statement in the affidavit that the individual had provided reliable information in the past. See Gerth, 51 N.E.3d at 373 (“We generally have not regarded such generic statements to be sufficient to establish an informant's credibility.”). But we do not agree that the affidavit was based on the hearsay provided by the tipster, as such information simply explained why the officers initially went to the property. See Mitchell v. State, 745 N.E.2d 775, 784 (Ind. 2001) (“The information provided by the hotel employee was only presented as a preliminary introductory matter to explain the investigation but did not provide information crucial to the probable cause determination.”); Redden v. State, 850 N.E.2d 451, 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (agreeing that uncorroborated hearsay from a source whose credibility is unknown, standing alone, cannot support a finding of probable cause but finding that the informant's information was provided in the affidavit “as a preliminary introductory matter to explain the investigation but did not provide information crucial to the probable cause determination”), trans. denied.

[21] Once at the property to serve the arrest warrant on Fireline, the officers developed the information crucial to the probable cause determination. That is, they determined that Fireline was indeed located in the RV; they observed a strong, distinct chemical odor near the RV that they associated with an active methamphetamine lab; and Fireline engaged in furtive movements inside the RV immediately upon seeing the officers.

[22] Fireline also attacks the affidavit by claiming that it contained misleading or false information. He fails to recognize, however, that “[m]istakes and inaccuracies in search warrant affidavits will not vitiate the reliability of the affidavits so long as such mistakes were innocently made.” Mitchell, 745 N.E.2d at 785 (internal quotations omitted). And it is his obligation to show that the alleged mistakes were “included in reckless disregard for the truth.” Id. (“The party alleging that the mistakes were not innocent must make a substantial showing that the facts were included in reckless disregard for the truth.”).

[23] Fireline suggests that the affidavit's description of his furtive behavior was misleading because it did not reveal that he answered the door within thirty seconds of Baker's first knock. In fact, the record indicates that Fireline took about thirty-eight seconds to answer the door, which provided him with ample time to secret contraband within the small RV. We find nothing misleading about this portion of the affidavit.

[24] He next argues that the affidavit erroneously indicated that all the officers at the scene smelled the chemical odor. The record, including the body cam videos admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing, clearly indicates that Baker, Wodtkey, and Oswald smelled the odor.³ Yet Fireline directs us to Clements's testimony from the suppression hearing that he “didn't, per se, smell anything myself outside the RV.” Suppression Hearing Transcript Vol. II at 115. Fireline overlooks that Clements clarified that he was not that close to the RV until after the arrest. Further, the body cam video shows the discussion between the four officers regarding the bases for a search warrant, including a discussion of the chemical odor, and at no point did Clements inform the other officers that he had not smelled the odor. To the extent that the statement in the affidavit that the officers all smelled the odor was inaccurate, there is no indication that this was anything other than an innocent mistake.

[25] In sum, the strong, distinct odor that the officers associated with a methamphetamine lab, Fireline's delay in answering the door when Baker knocked, and Fireline's furtive movements inside the RV before coming out, provided a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. The trial court did not err by allowing the evidence at trial.

[26] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There was also a substance found on a mirror inside the drawer of a large tool chest near the bed that officers suspected to be methamphetamine, but it was not sent to the lab for testing. At trial, Baker described this substance as “a smudge, almost like a paste like substance.” Trial Transcript Vol. II at 89. Hoien testified that this substance appeared to be in the process of either being “cut up” for sale or “maybe set out to dry because it was manufactured.” Id. at 105, 106.

2.   While Fireline cites to both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, he does not develop any independent argument that his rights were violated under the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, we find any such claim to be waived. See Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (observing that failure to provide independent analysis under Article 1, section 11 results in waiver), trans. denied.

3.   Hoien, who had specialized training in dismantling clandestine methamphetamine labs, testified that he detected the same odor when he arrived on the scene. While the source of the odor was not ultimately found inside the RV, Hoien explained at trial: “The odors, the chemicals can permeate in the wall and fabrics, tight and close spaces. It can linger for quite a while.” Trial Transcript Vol. II at 95.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Scheele, J., concur.