Jason Cornell Matlock, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After conducting two controlled drug buys between a confidential informant and a man connected to Jason Matlock (“Matlock”), law enforcement obtained a warrant to search Matlock's residence. The search yielded significant amounts of illegal drugs, cash, and firearms. Matlock was charged with various crimes and later unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search. On appeal, Matlock argues that the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not establish probable cause and, therefore, the search warrant was invalid. Finding a substantial basis for the issuance of the search warrant, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On an unknown date, a confidential informant advised Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Detective Scott Nickels (“Detective Nickels”) that a man known as ‘Matlock’ was who he contacted to purchase fentanyl out of a BP gas station on the west side of Indianapolis. The informant said that Matlock had “someone else deliver the narcotics because he was currently on GPS monitoring for a pending case.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 189. In addition to the information provided by the informant, Detective Nickels investigated this claim by searching various law enforcement databases and confirmed the individual in question was Jason Matlock. Marion County Probation then confirmed that Matlock was serving a sentence on probation, that he was on pre-trial GPS monitoring for a pending criminal matter, and that the residential address of 2902 Horse Hill West Drive, Indianapolis, was Matlock's address and was approximately one mile from the BP gas station.

[3] Between April 20, 2022 and May 3, 2022, Detective Nickels arranged for a confidential informant to participate in two controlled buys at the same BP parking lot where Matlock allegedly used a third party to sell drugs.  ¹ The first controlled buy occurred between April 20 and April 22, 2022. Before the buy, officers removed all personal effects from the informant and searched the informant's person and vehicle for narcotics, illegal contraband, personal money, and weapons. After photocopying the bills for evidentiary purposes, Detective Nickels provided the informant with money for the controlled buy.

[4] Detective Tiffany Wren followed the informant to the BP gas station, making no stops. Law enforcement officers surveilled the BP gas station as well as 2902 Horse Hill West Drive throughout the entire transaction, and all entrances and exits were monitored. A silver Chevrolet Camaro driven by an unidentified man pulled into the lot. The man exited his vehicle and approached the informant's driver's side window. The informant handed the man the buy money and the man told the informant he would return with the fentanyl. The man got back into the Camaro and drove directly to 2902 Horse Hill West Drive. The man “stayed only a short time before driving back to the BP lot.” Id. at 190. The man exited the Camaro, approached the informant's vehicle, and handed the informant a baggy containing a white powdery substance that was suspected to contain fentanyl. The man returned to the Camaro and drove straight back to 2902 Horse Hill West Drive while being observed by officers.

[5] After the controlled buy was completed, officers followed the informant as he drove directly from the BP parking lot to a pre-determined location. The informant handed Detective Nickels the baggy of suspected fentanyl and participated in an interview about the buy. Officers then searched the informant's vehicle and person for narcotics, illegal contraband, personal money, and weapons with negative results.

[6] Between May 1, 2022 and May 3, 2022, Detective Nickels conducted a second controlled buy between an informant and Matlock,² which was virtually identical to the first.³ After the two controlled buys were completed, Detective Nickels had a preliminary field test performed on the two baggies from the buys. Both tested positive for fentanyl.

[7] Based on the facts, circumstances, and observations from his investigation of Matlock and the two controlled buys, Detective Nickels applied for a warrant to search Matlock's single-family home for fentanyl, the photocopied buy money, and other specifically identified items. A magistrate granted the search warrant, and on May 4, 2022, Detective Nickels and other IMPD officers executed the warrant at Matlock's residence. Amongst other items, the officers discovered over $20,000 in cash, multiple firearms and ammunition, methamphetamine, fentanyl pills, and hydrocodone tablets.

[8] On May 6, 2022, and as later amended, the State charged Matlock with various drug-related felonies, a misdemeanor handgun charge, and alleged he was a habitual offender. On November 15, 2023, Matlock argued at a suppression hearing that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish probable cause. The trial court denied Matlock's motion to suppress the following day, reasoning in part that “[t]he credibility of the Confidential Informant(s) was not at issue because the transactions were closely monitored ‘controlled buy’ situations and would rely on the testimony of law enforcement officers, not the Informant(s).” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 100.

[9] At trial, Matlock reasserted his objection to the search warrant and the evidence resulting therefrom. The trial court admitted the search warrant over Matlock's objection but showed his continuous objection on the issue. A jury found Matlock guilty of Level 2 felony Dealing in Methamphetamine, Level 2 felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, and Level 3 Possession of Methamphetamine.⁴ Matlock then admitted he was a habitual offender. At sentencing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years executed in the Department of Corrections.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Matlock argues that the search warrant affidavit (“Affidavit”) failed to establish probable cause to search his residence because the Affidavit was based on uncorroborated hearsay information from a confidential informant and failed to link Matlock's residence to any criminal activity. He claims the Affidavit gave law enforcement “probable cause to arrest the unidentified [third party seller], but not to search Matlock's residence.” Appellant's Br. at 20.

[11] The trial court upheld the magistrate's finding of probable cause and “[w]e review the trial court's decision de novo, as it concerned the constitutionality of a search.” Heuring v. State, 140 N.E.3d 270, 273 (Ind. 2020). A magistrate tasked with deciding whether to issue a search warrant 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.” State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 953 (Ind. 2006). As the reviewing court, “we apply a deferential standard of review to the magistrate's probable cause finding, affirming if the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis’ for making that decision.” Heuring, 140 N.E.3d at 273 (quoting McGrath v. State, 95 N.E.3d 522, 527 (Ind. 2018)). “Our focus is ‘whether reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the evidence support’ the finding,” and we consider only the evidence submitted to the issuing magistrate and not any post hoc justifications for the search. Id. (quoting Query v. State, 745 N.E.2d 769, 771 (Ind. 2001), reh'g denied).

[12] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that search warrants be issued only upon a showing of probable cause. U.S. CONST. amend IV; see also Ind. Code § 35-33-5-1. “A search warrant issued without probable cause is invalid and thus the subsequent search illegal.” Heuring, 140 N.E.3d at 273. Indiana Code section 35-33-5-2(a) provides that no search warrant shall issue until there is filed with the judge an affidavit:

(1) particularly describing:

(A) the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for;

․

(2) alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that:

(A) the things sought are concealed there;

․

(3) setting forth the facts known to the affiant through personal knowledge or based on hearsay, constituting the probable cause.

[13] “An anonymous tip cannot, standing alone, support a finding of probable cause[,]” and in such instances, the reliability of the unidentified informant's hearsay information must generally be established. McGrath, 95 N.E.3d at 528. When based on hearsay, an 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). However, “the reliability requirements of Indiana Code Section 35-33-5-2(b) do not apply where the facts supporting the affidavit involved a controlled buy rather than the hearsay testimony from an informant.” Methene v. State, 720 N.E.2d 384, 389-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (holding that an affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause where it relied on an officer's “conclusory statement that the buy was conducted ‘under controlled circumstances and under the direction of the Affiant.’ ”).

[14] Here, the only hearsay information Detective Nickels relied upon was the confidential informant's initial identification of the dealer as a man named ‘Matlock.’ However, the Affidavit details how Detective Nickels independently verified Matlock's identity through various law enforcement databases and confirmed Matlock was on GPS monitoring and the location of his residence through Marion County Probation.

[15] As for the suspected criminal activity, Detective Nickels did not rely upon the confidential informant's hearsay information that Matlock was dealing fentanyl at the BP gas station through another person. In fact, we cannot be sure whether the tipping informant, the first controlled buy informant, and the second controlled buy are the same or different people. Rather, the Affidavit focused only on Detective Nickels’ personal observations and knowledge of the two controlled buys that IMPD arranged between the informant(s) and Matlock's third-party seller, who returned with fentanyl after visiting Matlock's known address while the buys were in progress. We agree with the trial court that Detective Nickels based his Affidavit on the controlled buys he facilitated, and that this case does not hinge on the reliability of the hearsay information provided by the confidential informant(s).

[16] The mechanics of a controlled buy include the following:

A controlled buy consists of searching the person who is to act as the buyer, removing all personal effects, giving him money with which to make the purchase, and then sending him into the residence in question. Upon his return he is again searched for contraband. Except for what actually transpires within the residence, the entire transaction takes place under the direct observation of the police. They ascertain that the buyer goes directly to the residence and returns directly, and they closely watch all entrances to the residence throughout the transaction.

Heyen v. State, 936 N.E.2d 294, 299-300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. “So long as the ‘controls are adequate, the affiant's personal observation of a controlled buy may be sufficient as grounds for finding probable cause.’ ” Id. (quoting Methene, 720 N.E.2d at 390). Under such circumstances, “a court may accept the personal observations of the attesting officer as establishing probable cause.” Id.

[17] In this case, the Affidavit explained the two controlled buys that Detective Nickels and IMPD officers arranged in significant detail. These controlled buys were somewhat untraditional in that they involved a third-party seller not subject to the direct oversight of law enforcement. However, all phases of the transaction at the BP gas station and Matlock's house were surveilled by officers. Detective Nickels stated that he and other officers searched the informant and his vehicle prior to giving the informant the photocopied buy money. The informant drove directly to the BP parking lot, an unidentified man drove up in a Camaro, exited his vehicle and approached the informant's driver's side window, the informant handed the man the buy money and the man left in his Camaro saying he would be back with fentanyl. The man then drove directly to Matlock's known residence and “stayed only a short time before driving back to the BP lot.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 190. Once back, the unidentified man exited his vehicle and handed the informant a baggy containing fentanyl. After the first controlled buy, the unidentified man drove directly back to Matlock's residence while being followed by officers. At a predetermined meet location, the informant then gave Detective Nickels the baggy of fentanyl, officers again searched the informant's person and vehicle, and the informant provided information about the buy.

[18] The Affidavit concluded with Detective Nickels’ request to search Matlock's single-family home at 2902 Horse Hill West Drive and contained a description of the items to be seized, including fentanyl, the IMPD buy money, firearms and ammunition, Matlock himself, and other items commonly associated with drug dealing. Matlock does not directly challenge the Affidavit's descriptions of the place to be searched or the items to be seized.

[19] Rather, Matlock argues that Detective Nickels’ description of the two controlled buys failed to present sufficient facts to “establish any link between” the third-party seller's criminal activity and Matlock or his residence. Appellant's Reply Br. at 5. He contends that finding otherwise would amount to rewriting the Affidavit. Indeed, “[a] search warrant affidavit must include facts that show, when viewed under the totality of the circumstances, a fair probability that a crime has been committed.” Heuring, 140 N.E.3d at 274. In other words, “the affidavit must link the object of the search with criminal activity.” Id.

[20] Matlock argues that the Affidavit failed to establish this vital link because it merely states that the third-party seller “drove directly to 2902 Horse Hill West Dr[ive]” and “stayed only a short time before driving back to the BP lot” and completing the drug deal. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 190. Because the Affidavit never explicitly states that the third-party seller entered his home or interacted with anyone at the residence, Matlock argues that no nexus between himself and the criminal activity was established.

[21] As the reviewing court, we are bound to focus on whether the reasonable inferences drawn from the Affidavit support the magistrate's probable cause finding. See Heuring, 140 N.E.3d at 273. Furthermore, the Affidavit was not required to establish with absolute certainty that a crime had been committed. See id. at 274. The totality of the circumstances reflects that Detective Nickels independently verified Matlock's identity and address before arranging two adequately controlled buys during which the third-party seller drove to Matlock's residence and returned with fentanyl. Although the Affidavit lacks precise detail about what occurred when the third-party seller arrived at 2902 Horse Hill West Drive and “stayed only a short time,” it is reasonable to infer that the third-party seller's side trek to Matlock's house was not random but was directly related to the ongoing drug deal. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 190. This inference is supported by the third-party seller returning to the BP parking lot to complete the transaction with a baggy of fentanyl in hand and, after the first controlled buy, driving straight back to 2902 Horse Hill West Drive. The totality of the circumstances presented in the Affidavit show that Matlock's known residence at 2902 Horse Hill West Drive was sufficiently linked to illegal activity to provide a substantial basis to support the magistrate's probable cause finding.

Conclusion

[22] A substantial basis existed to support the magistrate's probable cause determination for the issuance of the search warrant.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record does not disclose any details about how Detective Nickels or his confidential informant contacted Matlock to initiate the two controlled buys, nor is it clear from the record whether the confidential informant who gave law enforcement the initial information was the same confidential informant who participated in one, or both, of the controlled buys.

2.   The record contains no information about whether the confidential informants involved in the first and second controlled buys were the same or different people.

3.   Unlike the first controlled buy, the warrant affidavit's description of the second buy does not state where the unidentified man traveled to after delivering the fentanyl.

4.   The jury found Matlock not guilty of another Level 2 felony Dealing in a Narcotic Drug charge and the remaining charges were dismissed before trial.

DeBoer, Judge.

Judges May and Tavitas concur. May, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.