ILNews

Arrest upheld after seatbelt stop

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's motion to suppress evidence following a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, finding the police officer's inquiry regarding an object in the man's pants didn't violate his constitutional rights or the Seatbelt Enforcement Act.

In State of Indiana v. Robert Richardson,  No. 49A02-0807-CR-583, the state appealed the grant of Robert Richardson's motion to suppress evidence after he was arrested following a traffic stop. The officer believed Richardson was carrying a gun without a valid permit and later discovered cocaine in Richardson's pants. The officer originally pulled Richardson over for a seatbelt violation. As she was talking to his passenger, she noticed a large bulge in his pants, which was his handgun. Suspecting Richardson's gun permit could be forged, she radioed for information on whether Richardson had any prior felonies. Headquarters said he did, so she arrested him for having a firearm with a prior felony conviction in the last 15 years. He tried to run away, and in an attempt to subdue Richardson the officer discovered cocaine in his pants.

Using previous caselaw regarding the Seatbelt Enforcement Act, the appellate court ruled it wasn't impermissible under the act for the officer to ask a motorist what the large object in his pants was. The inquiry didn't exceed the scope of police behavior permitted under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act; Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution; or the Fourth Amendment, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The Court of Appeals also had to address the propriety of Richardson's arrest for carrying a handgun. When Richardson handed the officer his gun permit, it had been issued a year prior to the traffic stop, which means if it was a valid license, it would have been good for three more years or for life. Because it was tattered and the officer couldn't read the expiration date, she believed it could be forged. Headquarters told the officer Richardson had a felony on his record, but Richardson argued it was a misdemeanor. At this point, the officer had good reason to suspect the validity of Richardson's handgun license and therefore had probable cause to arrest him for carrying a handgun without a valid license, wrote the judge.

But the appellate review doesn't stop there, because the information the officer received was incorrect because Richardson didn't have a prior felony conviction. The Court of Appeals had to determine whether the evidence found as a result of this arrest, which was later found to be improper, should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, noted Judge Mathias. Using the recent ruling in Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009), as a guide, the appellate court believed the application of the rule as stated in Herring is proper in the instant case. The incorrect information by itself is not enough to justify suppression of evidence discovered as a result of an arrest, wrote Judge Mathias. The mistake in the instant case, just as in Herring, appears to be a "police mistake" which was the result of negligence, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. As such, exclusion isn't justified.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT