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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT