ILNews

Teen's Fourth Amendment rights not violated

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Debating in a footnote whether a juvenile's argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated was subject to a Terry stop analysis, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided to apply the Terry analysis to his case. The appellate court affirmed his adjudication of committing Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult.

In the case In re: J.D. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0808-JV-490, J.D. appealed the finding he committed resisting law enforcement after he ran away from police. J.D. was on a front porch of a house with other minors and there were open and empty containers of alcohol on the porch. Police, who came to the house after seeing J.D. and another juvenile head toward it, saw a few empty beer cans sitting near J.D. The police told everyone to sit down and they would be given breath tests. J.D. ran away, struggled with police and had to be tasered before complying.

J.D. argued the juvenile court erred in admitting evidence about what happened that night because it flowed from his seizure, which he claims violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution.

In analyzing his Fourth Amendment claim, the appellate judges debated whether Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), or State v. Atkins, 834 N.E.2d 1028, 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), which cited Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 123 120 S.Ct.673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), applied to J.D.'s case. Atkins ruled the Terry stop and frisk rule applied only to a brief encounter with a citizen and a police officer on a public street. Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote the Atkins case may have too literally read from Wardlow that that a Terry stop only applies under the stated circumstances of that case: when a citizen encounters a police officer and the encounter happens on a public street.

The judge continued in the footnote that the appellate court need not decide whether it agrees with this aspect of Atkins because J.D. doesn't argue that the Terry analysis doesn't apply in this situation. He just argues that the "reasonable suspicion" element isn't satisfied. As such, the Court of Appeals applied the Terry analysis to J.D.'s case.

The police saw minors sitting on a porch with empty cans of alcohol and even though police didn't see J.D. drink the beer, the fact he was near the empty cans and that he is a minor is sufficient to cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe criminal activity had happened or was about to happen, wrote Judge Friedlander. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion and J.D.'s detention didn't violate Fourth Amendment principles or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT