ILNews

Off-duty police officer’s stop and frisk violated Fourth Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The stop, search and subsequent discovery of drugs violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches even though the police officer was off duty at the time of the incident, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Derek Clanton v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1203-CR-198, the COA concluded the trial court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence because the arresting officer was not entitled to the further search that led to the discovery of the narcotics. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

Clanton was stopped and searched at an apartment complex by off-duty police officer Michael Price who was working part-time as a security officer. During the pat down of Clanton, Price felt a sharp object in his front pocket, removed it and found it was a pen cap. Inside the cap, he saw a plastic bag and upon closer examination discovered the cocaine.

Clanton was arrested and subsequently found guilty of possession of cocaine as a Class D felony. He appealed on the grounds that the cocaine should not have been admitted into evidence because the officer’s seizure violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The state contended the Fourth Amendment was not implicated by Price’s action because he was off duty. In disagreeing, the court held that the nature of his actions were consistent with his law enforcement training. Although the officer was off duty and on private property, the Fourth Amendment protections do apply to the stop and frisk he initiated.

Consequently, the discovery of the cocaine violated Clanton’s right prohibiting unreasonable searches because Price admitted he had to make a closer examination of the bag before he realized it contained the drug.

Judge Cale Bradford concurred the search was subject to Fourth Amendment protections but dissented that the stop and search were a violation of constitutional rights.

Affirming the trial court’s judgment, Bradford argued, “The fact that Officer Price did not know exactly which drug was stored in the plastic does not, in my view, render his removal of the plastic and subsequent seizure of the drugs found within unreasonable.”




 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT