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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT