ILNews

Richard rule’ questioned during oral arguments in 4th Amendment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is being asked to determine whether a ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals that allows police to search a passenger in a car after a police dog alerts to drugs being in the vehicle goes too far.

When a K-9 police officer alerted to the presence of drugs in a van police had received a prior tip about, the officers on the scene handcuffed the passenger, Will Thomas, and took him to the local police station after he refused to consent to a strip search. Thomas was then seen on police video trying to swallow several grams of heroin, but his counsel argues such evidence should not be used against him because officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him in the first place.

But during oral arguments Thursday in the case of Will Thomas v. State of Indiana, 27S02-1703-CR-00170, Larry Allen, a deputy attorney general representing the state, argued before the court that police officers did have probable cause to detain and search Thomas. He cited the K-9 alert, the information police gained through the prior tip and the fact that the officers had previously eliminated the car as the location of the heroin, thus leaving Thomas and the driver, Byron Christmas, as the only possible carriers of the drugs.

Thus, Thomas’ conviction for dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug should be affirmed, Allen said, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Indiana Court of Appeals’ reversal. But William Myers, a Grant County public defender representing Thomas, urged the opposite, arguing his client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers placed him in handcuffs.

Thomas was within his rights to refuse to consent to a strip search, Myers said, and the fact the drug dog had alerted on the van should not have been enough to allow officers to search Thomas and Christmas. Myers took particular issue with the decision in the case of Richard v. State, 7 N.E.36 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), which held that a positive K-9 alert on a vehicle can lead to the conclusion that the passengers in the vehicle have at least construction possession of illegal drugs.

Myers said the rule in Richard goes too far, but Allen disagreed and instead said Richard simply allows officers to move through a process of elimination to find the source of the drugs alerted to by the K-9 officer. Asked by Chief Justice Loretta Rush why such a process of elimination creates a legal problem, Myers said it would open the door for officers to arrest someone based solely on a K-9 alert, not an identifiable offense.

Oral arguments in Thomas’ case were succinct, with counsel using only a combined 28 minutes of the allotted 40 minutes for oral arguments. The full oral arguments can be viewed here.
 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT