ILNews

COA upholds stop of teen with gun

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found the stop by police of a teen at a summer expo in Indianapolis who had a loaded gun in his waistband didn’t violate the teen’s state or federal constitutional rights. The appellate court also concluded the juvenile court’s comments to the teen’s father don’t require a remand.

Teen W.H. was attending Black Expo in Indianapolis when police officers who were in a building above where W.H. was standing outside thought he may have a gun. The officers saw him lift his shirt, make hand movements toward his waist, and show something from his waistband. The officers radioed a description to police near the street corner, which had approximately 50 to 100 people on it.

Officers detained W.H., who matched the description. He initially tried to resist and denied he had a gun. Police found a gun in his waistband. He was charged with various offenses, including Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

W.H. moved to suppress evidence because he thought it was the result of an unconstitutional search; the juvenile court denied the motion. At the hearing, W.H.’s father addressed the court, saying he was concerned that anyone could have fit the description given by the officers. The judge reinforced that W.H. had a loaded gun.

In W.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0912-JV-1166, the appellate court affirmed W.H.’s federal and state constitutional rights weren’t violated by the stop and search by the officers. The police officers who stopped W.H. were alerted by other officers and had reasonable suspicion to stop him. The officers could reasonably believe W.H. had a weapon in his waistband and was showing it off. The officers weren’t required to rule out innocent explanations of why W.H. was lifting up his shirt, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. Also based on the number of people around, the officers were monitoring the crowds for public safety. W.H.’s Fourth Amendment rights weren’t violated.

Nor were his rights violated under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Based on the degree of suspicion that W.H. had a gun, the brevity and unintrusive nature of the stop, and the need to maintain safety, the officers didn’t act unreasonably, the appellate court ruled.

W.H. also claimed that the juvenile court offered no explanation for the constitutional basis of its suppression ruling and the case should be remanded for the juvenile court to explain its reasons. But a trial court doesn’t have to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with a motion to suppress evidence, wrote Judge Vaidik. In addition, the record shows the juvenile court properly based its ruling on the constitutionality of the officers’ search.

“The juvenile court simply admonished W.H.’s father for permitting W.H. to attend the Black Expo with a loaded gun,” she wrote. “These comments were irrelevant to the determination of reasonable suspicion and the constitutionality of the police officers’ stop-and-frisk.”

 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT