ILNews

Drug-dog sniff after traffic stop was rightly suppressed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A southern Indiana trial court rightly suppressed drug evidence gathered after a police drug-sniffing dog indicated the presence of meth in a van after a traffic stop.

Cannelton police Officer Micah Jackson followed a van driven by Molly Gray for some time after it failed to signal a turn, and the officer pulled over the van around 3 a.m. on Aug. 13, 2012. A short time later, Jackson had his canine conduct a free-air sniff around the van, which led to the discovery of a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine beneath a floorboard and a Class D felony meth possession charge against Gray.

Jackson later testified that he’d received information from an officer from Tell City that the driver was involved in illegal narcotics, but Jackson had no knowledge of specifics or the source of the information.

The opinion notes Jackson didn’t report Gray’s information to dispatch before starting the canine’s free-air sniff because Gray’s sister is a Tell City police dispatcher and Gray’s brother-in-law is a Perry County sheriff’s deputy, and Jackson testified he feared they might interfere in the investigation.

Gray succeeded in convincing Perry Circuit Judge Karen Werner to suppress the evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal in State of Indiana v. Molly Gray, 62A01-1303-CR-108. The court treated the information Jackson acted on as an anonymous tip insufficient for reasonable suspicion.

“Without addressing the validity of the initial stop, we conclude that the free-air canine sniff was not conducted incidental to the traffic stop and so required reasonable suspicion to justify increasing the duration of the stop,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote in the opinion joined by Judges Mark Bailey and Melissa May.

“Finding that Officer Jackson lacked reasonable suspicion, we hold that the seizure was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court did not err in suppressing the evidence.”

 






 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT