ILNews

Justices vacate transfer in pot bust case heard in Merrillville

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided appellate court ruling upholding a marijuana conviction resulting from a tip that led to a traffic stop will stand after the Indiana Supreme Court vacated transfer.

Four of five justices chose Wednesday to vacate transfer in Phillip T. Billingsley v. State of Indiana, 02S05-1303-CR-160. Justice Robert Rucker dissented from the order vacating transfer and would reverse the trial court.

Billingsley was convicted of Class D felony possession of marijuana after an Allen County bench trial. Fort Wayne police found the pot in Billingsley’s vehicle parked at a VFW post after receiving a tip from a 911 caller. Billingsley appealed, claiming that an officer pulled a gun on him as he sat in the vehicle and he was then placed under arrest. He challenged whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop.

A divided panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Billingsley’s conviction, noting the caller claimed to have been a victim of Billingsley’s criminal activity and a witness to ongoing criminal activity. But Judge James Kirsch argued that nothing known to police or the court allowed for a determination of the veracity of the information the caller provided and that the information was insufficient to satisfy state and federal court standards for investigatory stops.

Oral arguments were heard by about 400 people May 9 at Merrillville High School in an event organized by the Lake County Bar Association.

“Thereafter, we discussed the case in more detail at our weekly conference. After again considering the points raised in the parties’ briefs and the points made by the attorneys at the oral argument in Lake County, it is the view of a majority of the justices that the Court should not assume jurisdiction over this appeal, and that the Court of Appeals opinion be the final decision in this case,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the order.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT