ILNews

Judge worries ruling may make bright-line rule in traffic stops

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges each wrote their own opinion on whether a police officer’s safety concerns were legitimate enough to allow the officer to search a car after a traffic stop.

Judge Paul Mathias in his dissent worried that Judge Patricia Riley’s opinion – in which the majority found the search of Cedric Lewis’ car violated state and federal constitutions – began to take the law to a bright-line rule regarding the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement in the context of a car at the side of the road.

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Romeo Joson saw Lewis speeding and committing other traffic violations. When he pulled the car over, Lewis immediately put his hands out the window and seemed nervous. After finding out he was driving on a suspended license, Joson arrested Lewis. In answering a question about drugs or weapons in the car, Lewis only said there were no drugs.

Joson went to the open driver’s side door to ask the passenger to get out of the car because he believed it would be towed. As he leaned through the open door, he saw a handgun in the center console area. Lewis was convicted of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon over his objections to suppress the handgun evidence.

In Cedric Lewis v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0908-CR-736, Judge Riley focused her opinion on the officer safety exception for searching a car without a warrant and found Joson’s safety to not be an issue. If Joson was concerned for his safety, he wouldn’t have stuck his head in the driver’s side door to tell the passenger she needed to get out of the car. She wrote that she failed to see why it was necessary for the officer to lean into the vehicle to talk to the passenger.  

Judge Riley didn’t believe the holding would construe a bright-line rule that an officer could never lean into a car or reposition himself to get a better vantage point under the Fourth Amendment.

“Rather, officers may lawfully position themselves in any manner of ways outside of the vehicle as long as they do not cross into a constitutionally protected area. As soon an officer crosses into a constitutionally protected area without the benefit of a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment, like here, he is no longer rightfully positioned and is violating the defendant’s constitutional rights,” she wrote.

She also found the state didn’t satisfy the burden that the intrusion was reasonable under the Indiana Constitution.

But Judge Mathias thought the ruling went in the direction of creating a bright-line rule. While he wishes the record was more complete in explaining why the officer leaned into the car rather than using the onboard public address system, or that Joson had been asked and fully explained why he still felt concerned for his safety if he was willing to lean into the car, Judge Mathias believed there was enough information to support introducing the gun as evidence. Joson knew there might be a weapon in the car based on Lewis’ partial answer and there was a passenger who remained in the car.

Judge James Kirsch concurred in result with Judge Riley because he felt the record failed to answer important questions regarding officer safety concerns and that the state didn’t satisfy its burden to prove that the search was justified.
 

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