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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues