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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT