ILNews

7th Circuit: Officer entitled to qualified immunity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because Indiana's conversion statute doesn't appear to have an implied-consent defense, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a couple's excuse for possessing another person's camping gear was irrelevant to the probable-cause determination to arrest them.

In Jo Whitlock and Jesse Whitlock v. Shawn A. Brown, individually and as an Officer for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, No. 08-2800, the Whitlocks appealed summary judgment for Officer Shawn Brown in their suit alleging he violated their Fourth Amendment rights by omitting exculpatory facts from his warrant application to arrest the couple.

The Whitlocks had been camping in 2005 and found several items at a campsite. Believing they were left behind, they put them in their car to return them to the park office, but ran errands and forgot to turn them in until several hours later. While gone, the owner reported his belongings missing.

Brown thought there was probable cause for conversion charges and applied for an arrest warrant. The Whitlocks were arrested later, but the charges were eventually dropped.

The District Court granted summary judgment for Brown, holding he was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would have believed there was probable cause. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but based on a different analysis. Instead of focusing on whether Brown had probable cause, the Circuit Court examined whether he intentionally or recklessly withheld material information from the warrant application.

The Whitlocks claimed Brown only sent an affidavit with scant information on the incident to the prosecutor and didn't send the more detailed case report. That report did leave out the Whitlocks' explanation that because of an argument in the car with their daughter, they forgot to turn the bags in as they were leaving the park.

Brown testified he provided his case report to the prosecutor; the prosecutor's file was destroyed in 2006 for space reasons. There's no evidence that Brown withheld his case report from the prosecutor and it's just pure speculation on the part of the Whitlocks, wrote Judge Diane Sykes.

The Circuit judges also had to decide whether the omitted explanation was material to the warrant-issuing judge's probable-cause determination. They supposed that an Indiana court might hold that finders of lost property have implied consent from the owner to exert control for the limited purpose of returning it. If that was the case, then leaving out the Whitlocks' explanation may have been a material omission, wrote the judge, and would support they didn't exercise unauthorized control over the bags.

But there aren't any Indiana cases the judges could find establishing an implied-consent defense to a charge of criminal conversion.

"Given the breadth of Indiana's criminal-conversion statute and the apparent absence of an implied consent defense, the Whitlocks' excuse was irrelevant to the probable-cause determination - or at least of such questionable relevance that Brown is entitled to qualified immunity. At best, Indiana law is undeveloped in this area," she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT