ILNews

Justices split in traffic-stop decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court justices were split in their decision issued Dec. 31 on whether a defendant's state and federal constitutional rights were violated when police questioned him about weapons and drugs after he was pulled over for a traffic violation.

The majority ruled in State of Indiana v. Raymond Washington, Jr., No. 02S03-0804-CR-191, that Raymond Washington's Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution rights weren't violated when police discovered marijuana on him after he was stopped. Police saw Washington riding a moped that crossed the centerline and he was not wearing a helmet or goggles, which is required for riders younger than 18. The officer thought Washington was underage and pulled him over. After he discovered he was over 18, he asked whether Washington had any guns, drugs, or anything that could harm the officer. Washington admitted he had marijuana.

At trial, Washington filed a motion to suppress, claiming violations of the Fourth Amendment and Section 1, Article 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court granted the motion, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

The majority overturned the trial court, finding the officer's conduct didn't violate the federal or state constitutions. The issue of whether police questions unrelated to the initial reason for a detention may constitute an unlawful seizure hasn't been specifically addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Citing cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and various Circuit courts, Indiana's justices found the brief questioning of Washington as to whether he had any drugs, weapons, or anything that could harm the officer wasn't itself a search and seizure and wasn't prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. The officer's question didn't cause an excessive delay, and Washington wasn't obligated to answer the questions.

Applying the Litchfield factors to the instant case, the majority found the officer had a reasonable basis for stopping Washington, the degree of police intrusion was slight, and the officer's conduct in making the stop was appropriate to enforce traffic laws. In addition, the question about drugs and weapons was consistent with the officer's concern for his safety and his responsibility to deter crime, intercept criminal activity, and arrest perpetrators, wrote Justice Dickson. As a result, Washington's rights under the Indiana Constitution weren't violated.

Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker dissented in separate opinions. Justice Boehm didn't concur with the majority's Fourth Amendment analysis but agreed that the amendment doesn't bar brief questioning of a person subjected to a Terry stop. However, he wrote the Indiana Constitution requires reasonable suspicion of a separate offense before an officer conducting a traffic stop can broaden the questioning to other subjects beyond those dealing with the traffic stop and officer safety.

Justice Rucker dissented from the majority finding Washington's rights were violated under the federal and state constitutions. A police officer asking a stopped motorist about the presence of drugs with no basis whatsoever to believe they are present, is patently unreasonable, he wrote. Also, once the officer realized Washington was over 18, his traffic stop was done; just because someone is nervous, it doesn't alone constitute reasonable suspicion, he wrote.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT