Louisville-area defense attorney sues over cross-state search warrant used in Bachmann murder-for-hire case

A defense attorney for Henry Bachmann, who faces charges tied to an alleged murder-for-hire plot in New Albany, Indiana, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of a search warrant connected to the investigation. According to WAVE, the lawsuit was filed against the Louisville Metro Police Department, the New Albany Police Department, and the Floyd County Prosecutor’s Office, with the attorney arguing that a search of a Louisville-area home relied on an invalid Indiana warrant.

The filing centers on a cross-state warrant used to support law enforcement activity in Kentucky. The attorney’s claim, as described by WAVE, is that the warrant’s use across state lines was improper and that evidence obtained through that process should not have been pursued. The suit asks the court to address alleged violations of constitutional protections tied to searches and seizures.

WAVE reported that the defense attorney’s complaint includes an assertion that the Louisville search depended on an “illegal Indiana warrant,” a characterization that the lawsuit puts at issue through the federal court system rather than in the underlying state prosecution alone. The complaint therefore functions as a parallel legal track, seeking judicial review of how investigators obtained and executed the authorization for the Louisville-area search.

The defendants listed in the suit include two law enforcement agencies, Louisville Metro Police and New Albany Police, along with the Floyd County Prosecutor’s Office. That mix reflects the case’s investigative footprint across Kentucky and Indiana, and it also means the court will likely examine how cooperation between agencies translated into a search plan and what authority law enforcement believed it had at the time.

The court challenge comes as the Bachmann case proceeds. Legal disputes over search warrants can affect the admissibility of evidence and the timing of proceedings, depending on what evidence is tied to the challenged search and whether courts order suppression or other remedies. No outcome was reported by WAVE at the time of the filing.

For Louisville-area residents and public safety stakeholders, the complaint raises questions about cross-jurisdiction procedures and the practical safeguards that prevent constitutional errors during multi-state investigations. If courts agree with the defense’s contention that the warrant was not valid for use in Kentucky, it could narrow what prosecutors can present and increase scrutiny of how evidence is collected when state lines are involved.

The lawsuit’s next steps will depend on federal court scheduling and any motions practice that follows, including challenges to jurisdiction, requests to dismiss, and potential requests for suppression-related relief in connection with the underlying criminal case.

Until the federal court addresses the merits, the suit remains an allegation by the defense. The agencies named in the complaint have not been described by WAVE as conceding wrongdoing, and the prosecution’s ability to proceed will continue to depend on the evidence that is ultimately ruled admissible.