ILNews

Officer didn't conduct investigatory stop

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court didn't abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that a juvenile possessed marijuana because the seizure of the drug didn't violate the teen's constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In R.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0903-JV-218, R.H. appealed his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana if committed by an adult. R.H. was in the driver's seat of a car with three others parked in front of a woman's house at night. The homeowner was suspicious of the car and called police.

Office Shawn Holmes pulled up behind the car and activated his emergency lights. When a passenger rolled down his window, smoke came out of the car. He found marijuana in the car in the front console's ashtray and two bags on the floor of the front passenger seat.

R.H. argued the seizure of the marijuana resulted from a detention that violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions and that Holmes lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. R.H. believed that the use of the emergency lights meant he was being detained and not free to leave the scene or not answer questions.

The appellate court rejected his arguments and relying on Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. 2003), determined Holmes' approach and initial contact with R.H. didn't amount to seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Holmes was responding to a report from a concerned citizen, it was late at night, the car was already stopped, and he displayed no force, wrote Judge Carr Darden for the majority. They also weren't persuaded that when Holmes activated his lights to identify himself to other motorists, that it constituted a stop of R.H.'s car.

Because Judges Darden and Margret Robb found the initial encounter didn't constitute an investigatory stop, they didn't address whether Holmes had reasonable suspicion required under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), to conduct an investigatory stop. Judge Paul Mathias, in his concurring opinion, believed there is a solid statutory argument to be made that it would have been illegal for R.H. to drive away once Holmes approached the car with his lights activated. He also noted no right-minded person feels able to disregard the police unless he or she is told they are free to do so.

"The test should not be whether a reasonable person feels free to leave, because every stop is a seizure to the extent no reasonable person ever does feel free to leave; the test should be whether the seizure has become an unreasonable intrusion," he wrote.

A better test is to consider a car stopped in the circumstances of the instant case within the meaning of Terry. The facts giving rise to R.H.'s stop are facts previously held to warrant at least a Terry stop, he wrote. Judge Mathias also believed the evidence could be admitted under the Litchfield test.

The appellate court also determined the evidence was sufficient to support R.H.'s adjudication. The drugs found in the car were in plain view of R.H. and within reach of him, so it's reasonable to infer he knew of the marijuana and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it, wrote Judge Darden.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT