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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT