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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT