"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."
This is very similar to the Fourth Amendment. The protections it offers can be different. The Supreme Court of Indiana interprets the Fourth Amendment in conformance with U.S. Supreme Court. It interprets the Indiana Constittion as it thinks best. In applying the state constituion, the Indiana Supreme Court often stresses the totality of the circumstances in deciding what is reasonable.
Evidence seized in violation of Article 1, Section 11 is subject to suppression. When the evidence is suppressed, the State usually must dismiss the case.
In some ways, Indiana's constitution protects the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable government intrusion significantly more than the Fourth Amendment. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court invented the inevitable discovery rule, meaning that no matter how brutal and unwarranted an intrusion might be, the evidence can still be used against you if the government would have found it anyway. Indiana has no such rule. If the authorities seize evidence in Indiana before obtaining a warrant, or if their behavior is bad enough, they may not use that evidence against you in State court.