ILNews

Judges find stop violated Fourth Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a defendant's stop by police and subsequent search of a wheelbarrow he was pushing - which led to convictions of burglary and theft - violated the man's Fourth Amendment rights. The Circuit Court ordered the defendant's petition for habeas corpus be granted.

The District Court denied Kenneth Gentry's petition for habeas corpus. Gentry's petition was his most recent attempt to overturn his convictions following his 1999 arrest in Indianapolis. Police stopped Gentry walking down the street following a report of a suspicious person by neighbors. Gentry was pushing a wheelbarrow filled with items, some partially covered by a raincoat. The officers told Gentry to put his hands up, patted him down, and found a garage door opener on him. One officer tried the opener on nearby garages and discovered the opener and many of the items in the wheelbarrow, including the wheelbarrow - were stolen.

Gentry filed a pro se motion to suppress evidence but the record doesn't show whether the trial court ever ruled on it. His attorney never moved to suppress the evidence, objected to its introduction or addressed the pro se motion with the court. His appeals, including post-conviction relief, were denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court.

In Kenneth E. Gentry v. Mark R. Sevier, superintendent of the Miami Correctional Facility, No. 08-3574, the 7th Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus, finding the officers didn't have reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop or the pat-down of Gentry. Gentry was stopped because of a suspicious person report and was doing nothing more than pushing a wheelbarrow down the street. He even stopped when the police approached him. The officers could have just engaged Gentry in conversation and asked to search the wheelbarrow, but the stop was intrusive and non-consensual because he was ordered to stop and patted down, wrote Northern Illinois U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, who was sitting by designation on the Circuit Court.

When the officers discovered the bulge in Gentry's pants was just a garage opener, it should have ended the search, but instead an officer took it to see if it opened a nearby garage. Also, the officers needed to have a warrant to search through the wheelbarrow, even though some of the items were in plain sight. They had no reasonable suspicion that Gentry committed a crime until the officer using the garage door discovered it belonged to someone else, wrote the judge.

The Circuit Court also concluded that Gentry received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney didn't file a motion to suppress the evidence. The decision of the attorney to not seek to suppress the evidence based on the violation of Gentry's Fourth Amendment rights "is beyond the pale of an objectively reasonable strategy," wrote Judge Der-Yeghiayan.

The Circuit judges instructed the District Court to grant the petition and to release Gentry if the state decides not to retry him within 120 days.

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. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT