ILNews

Court: Police shouldn't have made traffic stop

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An appellate decision today in a drunk-driving traffic stop case out of Fort Wayne illustrates how a lack of knowledge about a particular road’s layout can derail the prosecution of someone who may have been intoxicated behind the wheel.

The ruling comes in State of Indiana v. James H. Sitts, No. 02A03-1001-CR-34, which comes from Allen Superior Court and involves a traffic stop for suspected drunk driving in June 2008.

Officer Dennis McCann received a report about an apparent drunk driver traveling northbound on a main artery in Fort Wayne. After responding to that area he began following a southbound pickup truck that could have been the one at issue. Witnessing the vehicle cross out of the lane of traffic into another one, the officer stopped the truck and witnessed signs that Sitts was intoxicated. McCann arrested Sitts for misdemeanor drunk driving and an infraction for crossing the centerline. The local prosecution pressed that “driving left center” infraction, but the trial judge suppressed the evidence after finding the police shouldn’t have made the traffic stop based largely on the observation that the driver “weaved across the center line” once.

The state Attorney General’s Office appealed and argued the lower court was wrong because the driver had in fact crossed the centerline into the opposite lane of travel and that meant McCann had reasonable suspicion to stop Sitts based on the minor traffic violation alone.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed the Allen Superior Court’s ruling because there was a simple problem with the state’s arguments: appellee-defendant James Sitts didn’t cross a centerline into opposing traffic, but rather he crossed the line into a lane going in the same direction.

“Sitts did not cross into the opposite lane of travel as the State asserts,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote, applying the facts to the traffic code provision detailed in Indiana Code 9-21-8-2(a). “Thus, we conclude that Officer (Dennis) McCann mistakenly believed that Sitts violated the statute.”

The judges also addressed how McCann didn’t substantiate any part of the report he’d received from dispatch, agreeing with the local judge that relying on that for the stop was unfounded based on Washington v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1241, 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Even though police can stop drivers for swerving back and forth between lanes, that didn’t happen here and the officer only observed Sitts crossing into the other lane once.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT