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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT