ILNews

Man's detainment by officer violated 4th Amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Conservation officers checking to see if a fisherman had a valid license did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the man and ask to see what was inside his bag after verifying his license, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Conservation Officers John Neargardner, who was in uniform, and Levi Clark were on boat patrol when they saw Stephen Alter fishing with a woman and a juvenile. They decided to see if Alter had a valid fishing license and was in compliance with state law regarding bag limits and size limits with fish. On their way to Alter’s location, Neargardner saw Alter pick up something small and put it in his bag.

When they got to Alter, they determined his fishing license was valid. While still in possession of the license, Neargardner asked if Alter had anything in his bag, to which Alter replied fishing gear. Alter let Neargardner look into the bag. Neargardner noticed a small bag inside, and he asked what was in it. Alter said “fishing gear” and asked why the officer wanted him to open the smaller bag.

Neargardner suspected it was something illegal like marijuana. Turns out, Alter had the drug in his bag, which he produced after the officer told him to “give me your marijuana.”

Alter was charged with Class D felonies possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance. He filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court granted.

The state claimed Neargardner’s actions didn’t constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Constitution, that he saw suspicious behavior and asking someone to hand over any contraband isn’t a search or seizure.

Addressing only the Fourth Amendment claim, the judges held that the circumstances in this case would lead them to agree with the trial court that a reasonable person in Alter’s position wouldn’t feel free to leave or resist Neargardner’s directives. Alter was being detained for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so the officers needed to have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had happened or was about to happen, wrote Judge Elaine Brown in State of Indiana v. Stephen Alter, No. 85A04-1101-CR-44.

Neargardner testified that he had a “gut feeling” that the bag had marijuana in it, and he suspected that based on Alter’s hesitancy to voluntarily reveal the contents of the smaller bag.

“Reasonable suspicion requires more than mere hunches or unparticularized suspicions, and an officer must be able to point to specific facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” wrote the judge.

The appellate court affirmed the grant of motion to suppress and also found that Indiana Code 14-22-39-3 does not allow conservation officers to detain or seize Alter in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT