COA rules police officer's questions not unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a man has incorrectly interpreted the Fourth Amendment in his appeal and that no constitutional violation occurred when he allowed a police officer to search his car.

In Chad M. McLain v. State of Indiana, No. 20A05-1109-CR-480, Elkhart County Police Officer Randy Valderrama pulled over Chad McLain when McLain failed to adequately signal before making a turn. Valderrama approached McLain’s car, requested his license and registration, and as he walked back to his patrol car he noticed McLain appear to tense up and look at the center console. Upon running a check on his license, Valderrama saw McLain had two prior “incidences” for possession of marijuana.

Valderrama issued a written warning and told McLain he was free to go. Valderrama then asked McLain if he had anything illegal in his vehicle, saying he was curious because of McLain’s two prior incidences. He asked if he could search the car, and McLain gave him permission. As the two walked toward McLain’s car, McLain admitted he had a marijuana pipe on the seat and a bag of marijuana in the dash console. Valderrama handcuffed McLain and put him in the back of the patrol car and requested assistance from a canine officer.

The canine officer’s dog alerted police to the presence of marijuana, and McLain was placed under arrest.

On appeal, McLain claimed the search of his car was a violation of his state and federal constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

“McLain’s argument is based on the faulty premise that the Fourth Amendment was implicated after Officer Valderrama gave him his license, registration, and the warning citation and told him that he was free to leave.” Judge Terry Crone wrote in the COA opinion. “At that point, McLain was in fact free to leave, and he was not required to answer the officer’s questions.”

Concluding McLain clearly and voluntarily consented to the search, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to admit evidence obtained in the search of McLain’s car.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit