Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Students from across the state heard oral arguments Friday in a case where a motion to suppress was granted to a man who allegedly caused a fatal crash, questioning the requirements for probable cause and the scope of 4th Amendment protections.
The “Appeals on Wheels,” a traveling oral argument program organized by the Indiana Court of Appeals to help Hoosiers learn more about the state’s judiciary process, hosted seven high schools and the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, where young people interested in the legal profession could witness a complex case unfold firsthand at the Fever’s practice court in Gainbridge Fieldhouse.
The case was heard by Judges Elaine Brown, Peter Foley and Elizabeth Tavitas.
According to court documents, on April 2, 2022, Dennis Poland, Jr., allegedly lost control of his truck while driving 30 miles over the speed limit in a no-passing zone. Poland allegedly entered a curve and fishtailed, swerving in and out of his lane of traffic, before striking another vehicle.
The passenger in Poland’s truck was ejected and died at the scene.
Poland, himself, was injured and taken to a hospital. A law enforcement officer later entered the emergency room where Poland was unconscious and receiving treatment. The officer did not believe he had ample time to secure a search warrant before the three-hour mark, so he requested a nurse supervisor to take a blood sample from Poland, which tested positive for fentanyl, a fentanyl metabolite and oxycodone.
The state later charged Poland with two counts of operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as level 4 felonies, two counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury as level 5 felonies and reckless homicide as a level 5 felony.
Poland then filed a motion to suppress, alleging that law enforcement officers illegally seized his blood without consent, probable cause and/or a search warrant authorizing said seizure.
The Franklin Circuit Court granted his motion.
The case was appealed by the state because, the appellants argued, law enforcement officers had reasonable probable cause and sufficient exigent circumstances to obtain a blood sample from an unconscious Poland.
The state drew from the U.S. Supreme Court case Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019), in which the high court ruled in a 5-4 decision that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally allows a blood test without a warrant.
“The question is simply whether there is a fair probability based on the facts and circumstances the police observed, in this case, the physical facts and the video, combined with the officers’ training and their experience, whether it is objectively reasonable that there is a fair probability that the officers would find evidence of intoxication,” said Robert Yoke, counsel for the state.
Although no warrant to obtain a blood sample was acquired by officers in this case, the state argued that exigent circumstances existed to circumvent the warrant requirement. Some of those circumstances, Yoke said, included the severity of the crash site, the rural location of the scene, which prevented officers from arriving sooner, and Poland’s medical care, which, he said, could change the content and concentration of the blood, affecting the reliability of the evidence.
“This is a high-speed, high-impact crash that has multiple factors that show these officers, based on their training and their experience, that intoxication is, in fact, likely to play parts,” he said.
With students sitting about 30 feet from the bench and with faces focused on the debate, they heard appellee counsel, Ben Bascom, push back against the state, arguing that probable cause could have been established in this case for some sort of search, just not a direct search of Poland’s blood.
“Just because you have probable cause of some crime, it doesn’t open the door to start a fishing expedition into anything,” Bascom said.
Bascom disagreed with the state’s conclusion that sufficient circumstances had been met for probable cause of intoxication while driving.
“While there may have been some indication of reckless driving, you can have reckless driving while perfectly sober,” he said.
The debate seemed to come down to interpretations of Mitchell and how much evidence is needed for probable cause.
“I don’t think that unconsciousness changes the basic protections of the 4th Amendment,” Bascom said.
Following the 40-minute hearing, students from Victory College Prep, Muncie Central High School, Purdue Polytechnic High School, Rooted School Indianapolis, Ben Davis High School, Arsenal Tech, Believe Circle City High School and IU McKinney were able to ask the judges questions about their work, their mindset going into cases and how they got to Indiana’s second-highest court.
From what majors the judges recommend pursuing to how they eliminate bias in their decision-making, students learned life lessons that Tavitas said she hopes will give students confidence in pursuing a legal profession.
“I am hoping that people, the students, here can see themselves in us, and think, ‘Yeah, I can do that too,'” Tavitas told The Lawyer. “That’s the biggest aspiration I have.”
Tavitas hopes that opportunities to experience the legal system, like “Appeals on Wheels,” will inspire students to help fill the gap that the statewide shortage of lawyers has left.
“I hope to inspire people to think, ‘You know, okay, well maybe I should go to law school because there will be a job for me, and I’m seeing what these judges are doing, what the lawyers are arguing, what they’re doing, and that looks like it’s something that I would like to do,'” she said.
A ruling in Poland’s case is expected to arrive in about two months, the typical timeline for the court, a spokesperson for the court said.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.