ILNews

7th Circuit affirms denial of motion to suppress search of car

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an automobile passenger’s motion to suppress evidence found in the car during a traffic stop, which led to his eventual pleading guilty to a heroin offense. The judges found no error by the District judge in crediting the testimony of the police officer who pulled the vehicle over because he believed the speed it was traveling and distance to the car in front of it violated Indiana law.

John Peters III was the passenger in a maroon Toyota Scion that was traveling closely behind a white GMC Denali. A Greenfield police officer initiated a traffic stop of the Denali, with Hancock County Sheriff’s Deputy Nick Ernstes initiating a stop of the Scion. Ernstes estimated the Scion was between 50 and 75 feet behind the Denali and traveling around 60 mph. He believed the combination of this high speed and short distance allowed less than two seconds of breaking time between the vehicles, and thus violated I.C. 9-21-8-14 by following too closely.

Ernstes smelled burnt marijuana when Peters rolled his window down and saw what he believed to be marijuana on Peters’ clothing. The deputy decided to search the car and found a marijuana stem in the car as well as a drill with a sticky substance on it. That substance matched that found on the screws of a panel concealing a kilogram of heroin in the Denali.

Peters moved to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, but later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin. The motion was denied.

The 7th Circuit concluded that Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson did not err in concluding that probable cause existed to believe that a driver followed another too closely under Indiana law when fewer than two seconds of breaking time separated the vehicles. Ernstes testified that he used the two-second rule described in the Indiana Driver’s Manual in determining a safe following distance regarding how long it takes for a car to break depending on its speed.

“[T]he district court committed no error in crediting the testimony of an experienced police officer that after observing two cars traveling in tandem for a period of time, he credibly believed that the trailing car was approximately seventy-five feet behind the lead car at a speed of approximately sixty miles per hour. If an officer knowing these facts could reasonably conclude that this combination of speed and distance violated Indiana law, that is all that is necessary to support probable cause,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in United States of America v. John A. Peters III, 12-3830.

The judges also upheld the search, noting they have previously held that a police officer who smells marijuana coming from a car has probable cause to search that car.
 

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

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT