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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT