ILNews

Observation and training provided 'reasonable suspicion' to conduct traffic stop

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man’s voluntary confession that he was a habitual traffic violator is admissible even though he had not broken any laws when the sheriff’s deputy pulled him over.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the traffic stop was illegal. In Gabriel Atkinson v. State of Indiana, 12A02-1302-CR-149, the appeals court concluded the totality of the circumstances supports the finding that the deputy had a reasonable suspicion for the investigatory traffic stop.

Clinton County Sheriff’s Deputy Dennis Tillman pulled Atkinson over after observing the driver repeatedly drive over the fog line on the right side of the road. Atkinson then told the deputy he was a habitual traffic violator.

After being charged with a class D felony, operating a vehicle as an HTV, Atkinson filed a motion to suppress the evidence. He asserted he should not have been pulled over because he did not commit a traffic infraction.  

Pointing to Wells v. State, 772 N.E.2d 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) and Barrett v. State 837 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), the court of appeals explained the driver does not have to commit an actual infraction in order for the officer to become reasonably suspicious to conduct a stop. Rather, in these two cases, the court considered the officer’s observation of erratic driving along with other factors in determining whether all the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion.  

Although Atkinson crossing the fog line was not an infraction, the COA found the deputy’s protracted observation coupled with his training and experience enabled him to determine that he was potentially watching an impaired driver.

“In sum, the State presented articulable facts and observations by Deputy Tillman, the totality of which are sufficient to support a finding of reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Atkinson,” Judge Terry Crone wrote for the court. “As such, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s admission of Atkinson’s identity and statements made during a stop concerning his HTV status.”
   

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS
    Well once again the COA writes the law, instead of enforcing the law. Their take is the cop has a badge, so the cop is right, rather, a badge is a license to break the law. I suggest, that the people in this country start surfing the internet for police misconduct and what the police get away with, in Berwyn Heights, Maryland, the police made a drug raid on the Mayor's house and killed his two dogs, of course they did this on a misconception that they were aware of, look it up. Remember Rodney King, things like that go on in America everyday. Just a few days ago, the police in Miami Beach, tasered an 18 year old to death, even after he was handcuffed and on the ground, then they high fived each other! Innocent people are sent to jail everyday, you could be next!

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT