Suspect’s disheveled appearance, not GPS, led to drug discovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A suspect’s attempt to pull up his unbuckled and falling pants as he stepped from his car negated any taint on the evidence caused by local law enforcement placing a GPS on his vehicle.  

Dorian Gray Jackson was convicted for possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to deliver as a Class A felony, two counts of dealing in a narcotic drug as Class B felonies, and possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal he challenged the admission of the evidence obtained at the traffic stop. He argued the baggies of heroin and marijuana constituted fruit of the poisonous tree because officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by installing and monitoring a GPS on his car without a warrant.

The state countered that evidence found was the result of a valid arrest and not because of the GPS. Even without the monitoring equipment, the Elkhart County Sheriff’s Department knew Jackson had conducted multiple heroin transactions and, once the car was pulled over, the detective recognized Jackson as the suspect in a drug investigation.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. In Dorian Gray Jackson v. State of Indiana, 20A05-1210-CR-572, the court affirmed Jackson’s convictions, noting that even if the sheriff relied on the GPS to illegally pinpoint Jackson’s location, that would not require exclusion of the evidence obtained at the traffic stop.

Instead, the intervening circumstances supported the state’s assertion that the drugs were discovered without the help of the GPS, the Court of Appeals stated. The sheriff’s detective initiated the traffic stop after Jackson turned his car onto an adjoining street without signaling 200 feet prior to the maneuver. Recognizing Jackson as the driver, the detective noticed the suspect’s belt was undone and his pants were hanging down and then became worried about a hidden weapon or contraband when the officer saw Jackson attempt to pull up his pants as he exited the car.  

“We conclude that the intervening circumstances, including the traffic infraction, the discovery of Jackson as the driver whom the police had probable cause to arrest, and the position of Jackson’s pants, were sufficient to dissipate any taint caused by the illegal reliance on the GPS device,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the court.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?