Clifford Vance v. State of Indiana

── Clifford Vance v. State of Indiana ── Court: Indiana Court of Appeals Date: May 27, 2026 Author: Mary DeBoer Category: General IN THE Court of Appeals of Indiana Clifford Vance, FILED May 27 2026, 9:12 am Appellant-Defendant CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff May 27, 2026 Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-CR-1741 Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court The Honorable Bradley Jacobs, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 10C02-2405-F2-14 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1741 | May 27, 2026 Page 1 of 18  Opinion by Judge Vaidik Judge DeBoer concurs. Chief Judge Tavitas concurs in result with separate opinion. Vaidik, Judge. Case Summary [1] In the middle of the night, two uniformed police officers knocked on Clifford Vance’s motel-room door, shone a flashlight on him as he stood at the door wearing only boxers, and—without telling him why they were there—asked if they could come inside to talk. Vance said yes and stepped back. Once inside, the officers observed marijuana and paraphernalia. The officers then told Vance, with “one hundred percent certainty,” that they would not “lock [him] up tonight” if he gave them “everything” and asked for his consent to search the room. Vance consented, and four bags of methamphetamine and other drug evidence were found. The officers left without arresting Vance that night, and an arrest warrant was issued several days later. Vance was convicted of several drug-related offenses, including Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. [2] Vance now appeals, arguing that the officers’ entry into and subsequent search of his motel room violated his rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. We agree that the search violated Article 1, Section 11. Applying the Litchfield factors, we conclude that the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge was low; the intrusion was at least moderate and arguably high; and the law-enforcement need was at most modest. The State has not shown that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-1741 | May 27, 2026 Page 2 of 18  the search and seizure were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and therefore the trial court erred in admitting the drug evidence found in Vance’s room. The error was not harmless; without the drug evidence, nothing remains to support Vance’s convictions. We therefore reverse. Facts and Procedural History [3] Shortly before 3:00 a.m. on May 1, 2024, Jeffersonville Police Department Sergeant Denver Leverett and his partner went to Room 112 at the Holiday Motel in Jeffersonville on “a call for service.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 238. Sergeant Leverett was in “full uniform,” including a “duty belt” and “a lot of other equipment,” and his body camera was recording. Id. at 246; Tr. Vol. 3 p. 9. With a flashlight in his hand, Sergeant Leverett knocked twice on Vance’s door. 1 After about 30 seconds, Vance cracked open his door wearing only boxers. Sergeant Le