ILNews

Judges: Vehicle stop by cops reasonable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man's illegal gun possession conviction, ruling the South Bend Police officer who made the traffic stop had reasonable suspicion the car may be linked to a shooting in an apartment complex.

In United States of America v. Arnold Brewer, No. 08-3257, a police officer responded to a fight in an apartment complex known for criminal activity. As Officer Tutino was near the complex, he heard popping sounds like gun shots, and then heard on the dispatch shots had been fired. As he entered the apartment complex on the only road in which one can enter or exit the complex, he passed a white SUV driven by Arnold Brewer. Tutino radioed for other officers to watch for the SUV. By the time bystanders had told the officer the shots came from the SUV, another officer had already stopped Brewer's car. Brewer admitted to having guns in the car, although there was no evidence the shots heard came from any of Brewer's guns.

Because the witness descriptions of the vehicle came in after Brewer was stopped, that report can't be used to justify the stop, wrote Judge Richard Posner. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges had to determine whether the car was stopped based on reasonable suspicion or pure hunch. Based on the circumstances of this case, the federal appellate judges ruled the police had reasonable suspicion to stop Brewer's car.

This case is different than one in which the police randomly stopped drivers to check drivers' licenses and registration when there was not suspicion of the drivers breaking the law, as was forbade in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 657 (1979), wrote Judge Posner.

The police in this case had a compelling reason to ask questions of the white SUV because it was the only car seen leaving the complex just after Tutino heard gunshots. Considering the dangerousness of the crime, the safety of the officers responding to the incident, the minimal intrusion on the occupants of the car, and the need to stop potentially fleeing suspects until more information could be obtained, the police acted reasonably, wrote Judge Posner.

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT