ILNews

Judges reverse denial of motion to suppress

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the denial of man’s motion to suppress, finding the traffic stop that resulted in his drunk driving arrest wasn’t supported by reasonable suspicion.

Greenwood Police Officer Greg Lengerich stopped Ryan Goens’ minivan for driving without any operable brake lights. During the stop, Lengerich smelled alcohol, gave Goens a warning citation for a vehicle equipment violation, and then conducted field sobriety tests. Goens failed them and blew a 0.21 after taking a certified breath test. He was charged with five counts relating to driving while intoxicated.

He filed a motion to suppress, arguing his minivan had two operable stop lamps and was in compliance with Title 9 of the Indiana Constitution. The officer was unable to attend the hearing and said in his deposition testimony that he couldn’t remember whether only one stop lamp wasn’t working or if all the stop lamps were out. Also at the hearing, Goens’ passenger testified he saw another officer move the minivan to a parking lot and that the only brake light out was on the rear passenger’s side.

Even though the trial court found two stop lamps were lighted, it denied his motion to suppress. The judge concluded it was reasonable for Lengerich to stop the minivan to inform the driver that a light was burned out.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial in Ryan J. Goens v. State of Indiana, No. 41A01-1006-CR-277. The state argued that Lengerich properly stopped Goens because his minivan wasn’t in compliance with Indiana Code sections 9-19-6-17 or 9-21-7-1, the “good working order statute.” Goens claimed his minivan had two operating stop lamps and was in compliance with I.C. Section 9-19-6-17(a).

After examining the statutes, the judges determined Goens’ vehicle was in compliance with Section 17(a). They read that statute, along with I.C. chapter 9-19-6, to rule the statutes require at least one, but only one, functioning stop lamp. The trial court concluded that two of the three lamps on Goens’ minivan were working, so there was no violation of I.C. Section 9-16-6-17 to support reasonable suspicion for the stop, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The judges also rejected the state’s argument that his vehicle wasn’t in “good working order.” Stop lamps aren’t specifically referenced in Article 21. The purpose of the statute is to require vehicles traveling on darkened roads to have operating headlights and taillights so that others can see the car. After examining the statutes, they decided that a stop or brake lamp isn’t the same equipment as, doesn’t serve the same function as, and is regulated differently from a tail lamp under Indiana statutes.
 
“Furthermore, as set forth above, sections 9-19-6-6 and 17 only require at least one functioning stop lamp. Therefore, if the good working order statute is applied to stop lamps, Goens’s vehicle was in good working order as required by section 9-21-7-1 because two of the three stop lamps on the vehicle were functioning properly at the time of the stop,” wrote Judge Mathias. “For all of these reasons, we conclude that Goens did not operate his vehicle in violation of either section 9-19-6-17 or section 9-21-7-1.”

ADVERTISEMENT

  • See Freeman
    Oh my; don't we have fun in Indiana. What do you now tell Law Enforcement.

    Freman v. State 904 NE2

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT