ILNews

Court addresses fine line between traffic stop, arrest

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a man’s drunk driving and marijuana possession convictions based on police officer conduct, finding that the officer shouldn’t have held a gun and handcuffed him during what could have been a legitimate traffic stop.

A unanimous three-judge panel ruled today in Daniel C. Reinhart v. State of Indiana, No. 57A03-1002-CR-84, which comes from Noble Superior Court. Daniel Reinhart was arrested following an August 2008 encounter with police involving a sheriff’s deputy who’d pulled him over in the early morning hours. At one point, Reinhart pulled his jeep into a driveway where the deputy was sitting with his radar gun and began yelling at the officer through the window. Another man was in the vehicle, and the deputy ordered Reinhart to back up after being concerned about his own safety. He then called for backup and followed Reinhart – witnessing him crossing into other traffic lanes.

The deputy pulled Reinhart over, drew his weapon, and ordered Reinhart to exit his vehicle and get on his knees with his hands on the back of his head. The man stayed in that position for about 90 seconds, and then was ordered to lie flat on his stomach for a pat-down search that revealed a glass marijuana pipe and a baggie of marijuana in his pocket. Officers also noticed there was a smell of alcohol coming from Reinhart, and that he had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. They handcuffed and arrested him.

During a bench trial in November 2009, the trial judge overruled Reinhart’s objection about the search and admitted the evidence, resulting in a conviction of felony drunk driving and misdemeanor marijuana possession. But the appellate court disagreed with that result.

Though a valid Terry stop allows for officers to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety, the deputy in this case displayed what the appellate judges considered excessive conduct that converted that Terry stop and allowable activity into what constitutes an arrest requiring probable cause.

“While we are mindful of the significant danger faced by police officers during traffic stops, we must balance the interests of officer safety with the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment in requiring law enforcement to use the least intrusive means necessary to investigate a traffic stop,” Judge Terry Crone wrote, citing Wilson v. State, 745 N.E.2d 789, 792 (Ind. 2001). “Under the facts presented, this was more than a minimal deprivation of Reinhart’s liberty of movement necessary to inform (the deputy’s) suspicion that Reinhart was operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The police officers’ behavior in this case exceeded the scope of a Terry stop and became an arrest without probable cause.”

Because police didn’t have probable cause to search Reinhart, the retrieved marijuana and drug material should not have been admitted, the appellate court ruled.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT