Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
As part of a daylong event designed to increase educators’ understanding of the Indiana judicial branch, the Court of Appeals of Indiana on Wednesday heard arguments in a case involving the admission of evidence collected during a traffic stop.
A panel including Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judges Melissa May and Elizabeth Tavitas heard arguments in James E. Ramsey v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2877, as part of the “Behind the Curtain: The Judicial Branch” program hosted by the COA and the Indiana Bar Foundation.
The case involves appellant-defendant James Ramsey, who is appealing his convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of meth and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
Ramsey was charged after being stopped by an officer who observed him weaving in between lanes. Before stopping him, the officer ran Ramsey’s plate and discovered he had a suspended license and was reported as missing.
When the officer stopped Ramsey, he noticed a cut above his eye and observed that he was fidgeting uncontrollably. According to the appellant’s brief, Ramsey has a neurological disorder and had suffered a seizure earlier that day, which caused the laceration.
At some point, the officer told Ramsey to call for a ride because his license was suspended.
After speaking with Ramsey, the officer had his K-9 conduct a sniff, and the dog indicated on the driver’s side of the door. A subsequent search revealed a pipe with residue, nearly 20 grams of meth, a digital scale and a mobile phone that contained evidence of drug dealing.
The Hendricks Superior Court held a bench trial and convicted Ramsey of Level 2 felony dealing in meth, Level 6 felony possession of meth and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. He was sentenced in 2022 to an aggregate of 35 years.
On appeal, Ramsey is arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence found in his vehicle following the traffic stop. He claims the duration of the traffic stop and subsequent search violated his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Zach Stock, Ramsey’s appellate attorney, argued that the traffic stop ended when the officer told Ramsey to call someone.
“In this case, we can say with some certainty that the stop of my client, James Ramsay, should have ended in roughly six minutes, because at this point the investigating officer told James to, quote, ‘call someone,’” Stock said.
Tavitas asked if Ramsey had called someone, to which Stock responded that he did not.
Altice noted that Ramsey had been stopped for several reasons, and that someone needed to be called because Ramsey had a suspended license and the car was going to be towed if nobody picked it up.
In response, Stock said, “He could have walked to McDonald’s, got a coffee while waiting for somebody to pick him up. He was still a free man.”
However, the stop didn’t end there, with the K-9 searching following.
May asked whether the officer had reasonable suspension to prolong the stop based on Ramsey telling the officer he had suffered a seizure earlier in the day and on the fact that he was having difficulty answering questions and grinding his teeth.
Stock explained that the officer suspected Ramsey was under the influence of drugs, but he never performed an impairment investigation because those tests are for alcohol.
“But the point is, he didn’t engage in anything like that that would have worked on anything that he allegedly suspected James was on,” Stock said.
He also argued nervousness wasn’t enough for reasonable suspicion.
The appellant’s brief cited Wells v. State, 922 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), where a defendant waited nearly 20 minutes for a K-9 to arrive. There, the COA reversed the denial of a motion to suppress, finding the stop could have ended before the K-9 arrived.
Altice questioned whether the two cases are different because Ramsey didn’t have to wait.
“It’s distinguishable, but we would contend it’s a distinction without a difference. The time doesn’t really matter,” Stock said.
Further, under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), the stop should have ended when the reason for the stop was concluded, Stock said, and the extension of the stop needed to be justified.
He asked the appellate court to determine the trial court made an error that would reverse Ramsey’s convictions.
Cathrine Brizzi with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office argued the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances to prolong the duration of the traffic stop to continue his investigation of Ramsey and his vehicle.
Altice asked about the degree of intrusion on the citizen.
“There was very little intrusion on his everyday legal activities here,” Brizzi said. “He was not permitted to drive regardless, so stopping him from driving at this juncture is not intruding on his everyday activities.”
The panel asked Brizzi about the Litchfield factors and how they apply to this case.
“Their interest in preventing impaired drivers and making sure that anyone who’s operating a vehicle is doing so safely and responsibly is very high,” she said.
She also said the stop became an investigation into two cases: the traffic infraction and the drug suspicion.
Tavitas asked if there was a traffic ticket issued. There was not, Brizzi said, adding that the officer felt it wasn’t necessary once illegal substances were discovered.
Brizzi asked the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s decision.
In his rebuttal, Stock said the degree of suspicion was low while the intrusion was high.
“This is a free country,” he said. “Police officers aren’t allowed to just keep people around as long as they want because they have a hunch of criminality.”
The full arguments can be viewed online.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.