ILNews

Judges find search of car for gun not justified

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges reversed the denial of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs found in his car during a search, but one judge believed the man's cooperation and respect toward the police officer shouldn't factor into their decision making.

In Melvin Washington v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0907-CV-649, Melvin Washington brought an interlocutory appeal of the denial to suppress evidence. An Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officer pulled over Washington's car because of a broken headlight. Washington was cooperative with the officer and admitted he had a gun under his front seat when asked if he had any weapons. Washington had a valid permit to carry the gun. While looking under the seat to get the gun, the officer saw a bag of marijuana.

He was charged with Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the drug evidence. Washington argued that the search violated his rights under the state and federal constitutions.

The appellate judges unanimously agreed that Washington's motion to suppress should have been granted, but came to their conclusion through different analyses. Judges Michael Kirsch and Carr Darden relied on Malone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), to conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, searching Washington's car wasn't justified. The arresting officer testified he wasn't specifically concerned for his safety during the stop and Washington made no furtive movements, was respectful, and cooperated with the officer.

Judge Melissa May concurred in a separate opinion and wrote that the motion to suppress should have been granted based on Arizona v. Gant, U.S. 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1723-24 (2009). Even though Gant involved an arrest instead of a traffic stop, Washington was also removed from his car and handcuffed and his statement that there was a gun under his seat couldn't justify a search of the car based on concern for officer safety.

"...Gant created a rule that relieves all of us from the burden of determining whether subjective facts (such as cooperation, respectfulness, and furtive movements) create 'an articulable basis' that a search is necessary for officer safety," she wrote. "...It seems to me, the rule articulated in Gant simultaneously increases protection for two important interests: the safety of our police officers and the constitutional rights of our citizens. As we all too frequently must choose between competing interests when deciding cases, I believe we ought to take full advantage of this opportunity."

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT