ILNews

COA: Police didn't need to search car after stop

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction, ruling the warrantless search of the car the man was driving violated his federal and state constitutional rights.

In light of the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 129 S. Ct. 170, 1719 (2009), the appellate court here reversed Timothy Hathaway's conviction because there was no reasonable basis for the arresting officer to search the car following the traffic stop. Hathaway was pulled over after a police officer saw him make a right turn without properly signaling and for having dark-tinted windows. Hathaway was originally arrested for driving while suspended with a prior judgment and told officers the car was registered to his sister. Both he and his passenger cooperated with police.

The police officer searched the car as part of a search incident to arrest and an inventory search prior to towing the vehicle. He found a gun under the driver's seat, and Hathaway admitted the gun was his. Hathaway's sister arrived at the scene and was allowed to drive her car home.

Hathaway was only charged with unlawful possession and not any traffic infractions or driving with a suspended license. He filed a motion to suppress the handgun, which was denied.

In Timothy Hathaway v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0807-CR-568, the appellate court found Gant to be similar to the instant case. Gant was arrested for driving while suspended and police found cocaine in his car. The U.S. Supreme Court held in cases where the recent occupant of a car is arrested for a traffic violation, there isn't a reasonable basis to believe the car contains relevant evidence.

Under the Indiana Constitution, the burden is on the state to show the search was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, wrote Senior Judge Betty Barteau. There weren't any facts in this case to show the police officer needed to search Hathaway's car to find or preserve evidence of driving with a suspended license. Everyone cooperated and the officer didn't testify he feared for his safety during the stop. Based on the facts of the case, the search was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution, she wrote.

The appellate court reversed Hathaway's conviction and sentence and remanded for it to be vacated.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT