ILNews

Officer's questions went beyond seat belt act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The inquiry by a police officer to a driver stopped for a seat belt violation about the "large, unusual bulge" in his pants went beyond the state's Seatbelt Enforcement Act, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

A police officer stopped Robert Richardson for driving his truck while not wearing a seat belt. The officer had stopped Richardson before and never had any problems with him. After stopping him, she noticed a large, strangely shaped bulge in his pants which was his handgun. He produced a tattered gun permit, but the expiration date wasn't legible. Based on the issue date, however, the permit should have still been valid. The officer radioed headquarters to do a criminal check on Richardson, but there was a discrepancy on whether he had been arrested for misdemeanors or felonies in the past. The officer tried to arrest him for having a gun with a prior felony conviction, but Richardson struggled. After subduing him, the officer found cocaine in his underwear.

He was charged with felony possession and dealing in cocaine, as well as felony possession of cocaine and a firearm. He also was charged with misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial court granted Richardson's motion to suppress the evidence.

On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the officer's questions and actions were reasonable under the act based on the totality of the circumstances and concern for safety.

But in State of Indiana v. Robert Richardson, No. 49S02-0910-CR-428, the justices unanimously agreed with the trial court that the officer's actions weren't reasonable under the Seatbelt Enforcement Act. Under the act, a car, the contents of the car, or the driver or passengers may not be inspected, searched, or detained only because they violated the act. If circumstances warrant, an officer may make a further investigation if she believes illegal activity is going on, but the state must prove that the intrusion was reasonable.

The officer who stopped Richardson "crossed a line" because Richardson was cooperative, admitted he wasn't wearing his seat belt, informed her of his gun, and had a valid permit. The fact Richardson had a valid gun permit should have ended any further questioning by the officer, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

"There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an 'unusual bulge' will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them," he continued.

The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on whether Richardson's conduct created probable cause to arrest him for forcibly resisting arrest and battery upon a law enforcement officer. The justices declined to rule on that issue because of an insufficient record as to whether his resisting law enforcement and battery charges were severable offenses independent of the seat belt search that warrant prosecution.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • still don't get it.
    Man arrested for not providing ID during seat belt stop. Mayor and Police Dept defend officer's illegal actions. Man files suit.

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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT