ILNews

Majority: warrantless car search OK under automobile exception

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Fourth Amendment doesn’t prohibit a warrantless search of an operational car found in a public place if police have probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In State of Indiana v. James S. Hobbs, IV, No. 19S01-1001-CR-10, police went to James Hobbs’ place of work to arrest him on a felony search warrant. Before they could do so, they saw him leave the Pizza Hut where he worked, put something in his car and go back inside. They arrested him in the restaurant. A drug dog was used after Hobbs refused to allow police to search his car. The dog alerted to illegal narcotics and police found marijuana and other paraphernalia.

The trial court ruled the dog’s alert provided probable cause to get a search warrant but since police didn’t get one, the evidence was illegally seized. The state appealed the dismissal of marijuana and paraphernalia possession charges against Hobbs for lack of probable cause. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed because the dog sniff provided probable cause to support the warrantless search.

The justices found the “search incident to arrest” exception didn’t apply, but the “automobile exception” did, allowing officers to search the car without a warrant. Hobbs’ car was operational and in the parking area of the restaurant, so it fell under the automobile exception. The officers’ own observations of Hobbs opening the car and putting something inside gave them probable cause to believe that Hobbs owned whatever was inside the car, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm for the majority.

In addition, it’s well settled that a dog sniff search isn’t protected by the Fourth Amendment. It provided probable cause the car contained evidence of a crime – illegal drugs – so the search didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. It also didn’t violate Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The police action here was reasonable and there was no disruption of Hobbs’ normal activities. At the time the car was searched, he was already under arrest for a different crime and would remain in custody whether or not the search happened.

Justices Boehm, Brent Dickson, and Chief Justice Randall Shepard voted to reverse the trial court. Justices Frank Sullivan and Robert Rucker dissented because they didn’t find the automobile exception allowed police to search the car without a warrant. Justice Sullivan wrote that he believed the majority interpreted the exception too narrowly.

“… in all of the cases where the automobile exception to the warrant requirement has been held available, the vehicle in question has been not only readily mobile and operational but also in close proximity to the suspect at the time of initial contact with the police,” he wrote. “Defendant’s lack of proximity to the automobile at the time of arrest – he was inside his place of employment and the car was parked outside in the lot – should render the automobile exception unavailable.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT