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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT