ILNews

Canine sniff case gets second look, same ruling

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On a rehearing petition from the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed today its holding in reversing a conviction based on a traffic stop involving a canine sniff.

In Derrick Bush v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0907-CR-682, the state sought rehearing of the court’s April 27, 2010, ruling in which the court opined the state did not meet its burden of showing a traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged or that there was an independent reasonable suspicion to justify the canine sniff. Derrick Bush was convicted of carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. The state argued that Bush did not argue to the trial court that his detention was unreasonably prolonged and that his appellant’s brief did not address the duration of his detention or the legality of the canine sniff.

The appellate court granted rehearing to clarify procedural history and to address the state’s claim of waiver. Judge Margret Robb wrote that Bush repeatedly objected during the bench trial to the admission of evidence of the handgun and in his objections, he referred not only to the lack of reasonable suspicion but also to his detention. That, the court wrote, raised the issue of whether the detention was unreasonably prolonged, and the objection was sufficient to preserve the Fourth Amendment issue for appeal, including “the dual aspects of the duration of Bush’s detention and whether there was reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop by conducting a canine sniff. See Chest v. State, 922 N.E.2d 621, 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).”

On appeal, Bush had argued the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11. Bush’s brief noted that based on Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), the exception for an automobile search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest was inapplicable to the present case. The state’s brief did not discuss Gant but said the applicable exception was probable cause as supplied by the positive alert of the drug-detecting dog, citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). Bush responded to this during arguments, noting the canine sniff of his vehicle occurred after the purpose of the traffic stop was complete and therefore was not reasonable under Caballes and all Indiana cases applying Caballes.

The State in its petition for rehearing points out that the appellate court cannot reverse on issues raised sua sponte unless the grounds for reversal constitute fundamental error. However, Judge Robb wrote, “… we do not regard the reasonableness of Bush’s detention and the canine sniff of his automobile as an issue raised sua sponte. The State, by not responding in its brief to Bush’s contentions regarding Gant and instead focusing its Fourth Amendment argument on the canine sniff as the basis for the warrantless search, impliedly consented to litigating this case on the grounds addressed in our original opinion. It is too late for the State to switch course and insist the warrantless search issue is properly framed only in terms of whether the search was valid under Gant. See State v. Jones, 835 N.E.2d 1002, 1004 (Ind. 2005).”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I will be filing a lawsuit in Tippecanoe County for so many violations in a case we became involved in, including failure to contact through mail, Violation of 4th Amendment rights, Violation of Civil Rights, and so on. Even the Indiana Ombudsmen Bureau found violations and I have now received the report and they are demanding further training in Tippecanoe County. I am going to make sure they follow through!!!

  2. ?????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????! ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ? ????? ?? ??????, ?? ???????, ?? ???????, ?? ??????, ?? ???? ? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????. ???? ???????? ????????????? ??? ??????? ?????? - ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????????. ???????? ????? ????? ???????, ?????????? ????????? ????????, ????????? >>>> ?????? ????? http://xurl.es/PR0DAWEZ

  3. I thought the purpose of the criminal justice center was to consolidate all the criminal services and get them out of downtown to clean up the place. Why in the HELL are the civil courts moving? What a burden to all the downtown law firms. Now we all get to work downtown, but then have to get in a car and COMMUTE to court? Who approved this idiocy?

  4. I drive through the neighborhood whenever I go to the City-County Building or the Federal Courthouse. The surrounding streets are all two way with only two lanes of traffic, and traffic is very slow during rush hour. I hope that enough money has been allocated to allow for improvement of the surrounding streets.

  5. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

ADVERTISEMENT