Tom E Mills v. State of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 1 of 9
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any
action in reliance upon this Memorandum Decision until it is certified.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Tom E. Mills,
Appellant-Defendant
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
October 15, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-CR-922
Appeal from the Wabash Circuit Court
The Honorable Robert R. McCallen, III, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
85C01-2310-F2-1122
Memorandum Decision by Judge Vaidik
Judges Altice and Foley concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 2 of 9
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] 	Tom E. Mills appeals his convictions for Level 2 felony dealing in
methamphetamine and Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine. He
argues that certain evidence was obtained in violation of his federal and state
constitutional rights and that the trial court therefore erred by admitting it into
evidence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] 	One night in October 2023, Cynthia Giger and her boyfriend approached
Wabash City Police Department Sergeant Drew Bender and Wabash County
Sheriff’s Department Deputy Corey Phillipy, who were on duty, in a gas station
parking lot. The boyfriend told the officers that Cynthia’s daughter, Alexis
Giger, was at Cynthia’s house and had a warrant out for her arrest. Cynthia
gave the officers permission to go to her house to look for Alexis and also told
them that Mills’s truck was parked in her backyard, and she didn’t want it
there. Sergeant Bender and Deputy Phillipy both worked with the Wabash
County Drug Task Force, and they knew there was an active investigation
involving Mills at the time. The officers followed Cynthia to her house, and
other officers met them there to assist.
[3] 	At the house, officers found Alexis and Mills in Alexis’s bedroom. From the
bedroom doorway, officers saw multiple glass pipes with residue in them as
well as a mirror with white residue on it on the nightstand. Alexis was arrested

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 3 of 9
pursuant to the warrant and taken to jail, but Mills remained in the bedroom.
Sergeant Bender asked him, “Are you staying here?” and Mills said, “No, I’m
just here visiting.” Ex. 20 at 7:28. Sergeant Bender then field tested the pipes for
methamphetamine, but the results were negative. Deputy Phillipy retrieved the
mirror for it to be tested, and Mills said, “None of this stuff’s mine. . . . Like I
said, I’m just here visiting. I brought some food over tonight for her.”
Suppression Ex. 2 at 15:57-16:05. Sergeant Bender field tested the mirror for
methamphetamine, which was also negative. Because he “could clearly see a
white crystal-like substance on this mirror,” Sergeant Bender had another
officer get a new field test and test the mirror again. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 45. The second
test was positive for methamphetamine. Officers then detained Mills.
[4] 	Deputy Phillipy applied for a warrant to search the property and Mills’s person,
stating in the affidavit of probable cause that “Officers were able to get a
positive field test for methamphetamine on the paraphernalia inside the
bedroom.” Suppression Ex. 3. After the warrant was granted, police searched
Alexis’s bedroom and found a total of 30.68 grams of methamphetamine,
multiple scales, dozens of plastic baggies, and other drug paraphernalia.
Meanwhile, Sergeant Bender ran his canine partner around Mills’s truck in the
backyard. The canine alerted to the odor of narcotics. Based on the alert,
Deputy Phillipy applied for and was granted a search warrant for Mills’s truck.
Officers searched the truck and found 1.91 grams of methamphetamine in the
center console. Police subsequently obtained a warrant to search Mills’s cell
phone and found text messages that appeared to be about drug deals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 4 of 9
[5] 	The State charged Mills with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,
Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level 4 felony possession
of methamphetamine and alleged that he is a habitual offender. Before trial,
Mills moved to suppress “all items seized” by police, arguing that the various
searches and seizures violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana
Constitution. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 109. At the suppression hearing, the
State argued that there were no state or federal constitutional violations and
questioned whether Mills even had standing to challenge any searches of or
seizures from Alexis’s bedroom, noting that he was “essentially arguing that . . .
he should have the same expectation of privacy as Alexis, but that’s not the
case. He’s a visitor.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 88. The trial court denied Mills’s motion to
suppress.
[6] 	A jury trial was held in November 2025. Mills objected to the admission of
evidence seized from Alexis’s bedroom, his truck, and his cell phone and
testimony thereon, again arguing that the searches and seizures were
unconstitutional. The trial court overruled his objections. The jury found Mills
guilty as charged, and the trial court entered judgment of conviction for Level 2
felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 3 felony possession of
methamphetamine (but not on the Level 4 felony count, as it was a lesser-
included offense of the Level 3 felony). Mills admitted being a habitual
offender. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 40 years.
[7] 	Mills now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 5 of 9
Discussion and Decision
[8] 	Mills argues that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized from
Alexis’s bedroom, his truck, and his cell phone because, according to Mills, the
evidence was obtained in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights.
While we generally review rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse
of discretion, when a challenge to such a ruling is based on the constitutionality
of a search or seizure, our review is de novo. Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621,
624 (Ind. 2017).
I. Mills lacks standing to challenge any search of or seizure
from Alexis’s bedroom because he failed to establish a
legitimate expectation of privacy
[9] 	Mills contends that the police activity in Alexis’s bedroom—both the field
testing and the subsequent search pursuant to the warrant—were
unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the
Indiana Constitution. The State argues that Mills does not have standing to
raise these challenges. The rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1,
Section 11 to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures are “personal to
an individual and may not be vicariously asserted.” State v. Allen, 187 N.E.3d
221, 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. In other words, “[i]n order to
challenge a search as unconstitutional, a defendant must have a legitimate
expectation of privacy in that which is searched.” Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d
528, 532 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied. “It is the burden of the defendant challenging

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 6 of 9
the constitutionality of a search under either our federal or state Constitutions
to establish his standing to do so.” Allen, 187 N.E.3d at 227.
[10] 	To assert a challenge under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must
demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched.
Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 532. The Indiana Constitution goes a step further and
“provides protection for claimed possessions irrespective of the defendant’s
interest in the place where the possession was found.” Campos v. State, 885
N.E.2d 590, 598 (Ind. 2008). “Therefore, to challenge evidence as the result of
an unreasonable search or seizure under Article [1], Section 11, a defendant
must establish ownership, control, possession, or interest in either the premises
searched or the property seized.” Peterson, 674 N.E.2d at 534. But “where the
defendant does not assert any claim of privacy to a seized item, the result under
both Constitutions will essentially be the same.” Allen, 187 N.E.3d at 228.
[11] 	Mills failed to establish standing under either the federal or state constitution.
After Alexis’s arrest, when Sergeant Bender asked Mills if he was “staying
here,” he said, “No, I’m just here visiting.” Several minutes later, he told
officers, “Like I said, I’m just here visiting. I brought some food over tonight for
her.” See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90 (1998) (explaining that “one who is
merely present with the consent of the householder may not” “claim the
protection of the Fourth Amendment”). Mills doesn’t identify any evidence that
he was more than a mere visitor in the house—in fact, he doesn’t address
standing in his brief at all. Because he failed to meet his burden to demonstrate
a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched, Mills does not

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 7 of 9
have standing under the Fourth Amendment to assert these challenges.
Additionally, Mills did not assert any claim of privacy to any of the evidence
seized from Alexis’s bedroom—when Deputy Phillipy went to pick up the
mirror with white residue on it, Mills said, “None of this stuff’s mine,” and he
didn’t claim otherwise at the suppression hearing. Thus, the result under Article
1, Section 11 is the same. Mills does not have standing to challenge any search
of or seizure from Alexis’s bedroom.
II. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence seized
as a result of the searches of Mills’s truck and cell phone
[12] 	Mills also contends that the searches of his truck and cell phone violated his
federal and state constitutional rights. He argues that the first search warrant,
which authorized the search of not only Cynthia’s property but also Mills’s
person, was invalid because Deputy Phillipy “intentionally omitted” from the
warrant application the fact that the initial field tests of the pipes and mirror
were negative, “and it was only after manipulating the items by subjecting them
to additional field testing, did a positive test result emerge.” Appellant’s Br. p.
26. And, Mills claims, without the evidence obtained as a result of police
executing the first warrant, which included the K-9 sniff of his truck, the
warrants for his truck and cell phone would not have been granted.
[13] 	“[T]he analysis of a search warrant application omitting allegedly material
information is the same under Indiana law as under federal law.” Ware v. State,
859 N.E.2d 708, 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), reh’g denied. “Where a defendant
claims that information has been wrongly omitted from the affidavit,” he must

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 8 of 9
show that (1) “the affiant engaged in a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard
for the truth in omitting the information” and (2) “probable cause would no
longer exist if such omitted information were considered by the issuing judge.”
Allen, 187 N.E.3d at 229-30.
[14] 	As the State points out, Mills doesn’t identify any evidence showing that
Deputy Phillipy engaged in a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the
truth in omitting the information about the negative field tests from the warrant
application; Mills merely relies on the omission itself. But a defendant cannot
make the requisite showing just by showing that an omission was made. See id.
at 230. And even if Mills had shown a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard
for the truth, he has not established that, had the omitted information been
included, there would not have been probable cause to issue the search warrant.
He simply states, without explanation or citation to any supporting evidence or
authority, that “had the trial court known and considered this information, it
would not have issued the first search warrant.” Appellant’s Br. p. 27; see also id.
at 18, 22, 28, 29. Mills has failed to establish that the first search warrant was
invalid. And because the alleged invalidity of the first warrant is the only basis
for Mills’s challenges to the searches of his truck and cell phone, these searches
were not unconstitutional. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence
seized as a result of these searches.
[15] 	Affirmed.
Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-922 | October 15, 2026 	Page 9 of 9
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Justin R. Wall
Wall Legal Services
Huntington, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General
Steven J. Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana