ILNews

Court finds police lacked reasonable suspicion for stop and search

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that an Indianapolis police officer didn’t have reasonable suspicion or consent to stop a man acting suspiciously in a gas station parking lot, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed two fraud convictions involving the possession of movie DVDs that weren’t yet on the market.

In Michael Woodson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1106-CR-306, the appellate court found that a “hot zone” of drug activity doesn’t alone justify stopping and questioning someone who might be acting suspiciously.

The officer was patrolling an area in Indianapolis in February 2011 when he saw a bicycle parked next to a maroon vehicle in the fast food and gas station parking lot. A man later identified as Michael Woodson existed the car, put on a backpack and began riding in the parking lot. The car left and another police patrol vehicle pulled the car over, while the original patrolling officer approached Woodson and asked him what he was doing. The officer testified that Woodson became loud and belligerent, so the officer immediately handcuffed him for safety reasons and then asked to search the backpack. Woodson consented. Inside, the officer found 34 DVDs marked with titles of movies that he recognized as still being in the theater and not yet on sale. Woodson was arrested and charged with two counts of fraud, and at a Marion County bench trial he was found guilty on both and sentenced to a partially suspended two-year sentence.

On appeal, Woodson argued the trial court had erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence because the search and seizure wasn’t based on reasonable suspicion as required by the Indiana and U.S. constitutions. The appellate court agreed, finding that the officer didn’t have the necessary reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and that the initial interaction wasn’t consensual. The court found that because Woodson observed the maroon car being pulled over by another police vehicle and he was immediately handcuffed and not free to leave, his consent to search the backpack wasn’t adequate.

Only the fact that the area of Indianapolis in which Woodson was arrested was considered to be a ‘hot zone’ gave Officer (Christopher) Cooper any kind of suspicion that drug-related or other illegal activity might be afoot,” Judge Mark Bailey wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. “This is not enough to amount to reasonable suspicion, and we therefore cannot conclude under the totality of the circumstances that Officer Cooper’s Terry stop was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment.”

The court reversed Woodson’s convictions, finding that admitting the DVDs into evidence was clearly prejudicial and led to testimony that otherwise would have left the state with otherwise insufficient evidence for a conviction.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT