Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A warrantless search of a man’s vehicle that resulted in police discovering a loaded firearm was constitutional, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled Thursday in affirming a trial court’s decision.
According to court records, in September 2021, Lake Station Police Department Officer George Fields Jr.’s vehicle’s radar system clocked a vehicle speeding around 3:30 a.m.
Fields followed the car and saw it cross the center line three or four times, so he initiated a traffic stop.
As Fields walked up to the passenger side, he smelled the odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. He also saw an open bottle of tequila on the passenger side floorboard.
Cobb was the only person in the car and Fields smelled alcohol on Cobb’s breath and person. He also noticed his speech was slurred, his eyes were “glossy”, and his face was flushed.
Fields called for a backup officer and told Cobbs to keep his hands on the steering wheel.
Cobb didn’t comply with the order and at first was just showing his hands and then kept moving them around and became fidgety. Fields was concerned and thought Cobb was exhibiting signs of nervousness.
Once Lake Station Police Department Officer David Wright arrived, Fields asked Cobb to step out of the vehicle. Cobb didn’t do so immediately, only after Fields repeated the request several times.
When Cobb did step out of the vehicle, he reached back to retrieve his phone to record the interaction.
Fields questioned Cobb on if he had been drinking that night and Cobb responded that he had a few beverages.
Fields asked Cobb to preform field sobriety tests, but Cobb refused saying “if it’s going to put me in jail, I’m not going to do it.”
Fields asked Cobb to take a portable breath test to which he refused. He then handcuffed Cobb and arrested him for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
Wright called for a tow truck and then opened the driver’s door to perform inventory of the vehicle.
As soon as Wright opened the door, Cobb attempted to pull away from Fields.
Cobb managed to break free of Fields and lunged in the direction of the driver’s door. Once Fields regained control of Cobb, he told him to stop pulling away.
In an attempt to control Cobb, Fields had to bend Cobb over the hood of the vehicle so he couldn’t move, and Wright came to help since Cobb was flailing his arms, shoulders and legs to the point the officers knew being in front of the car was not a safe option.
They moved Cobb to the grassy area next to the vehicle and held Cobb on the ground while Wright requested backup. When backup arrived, Cobb was moved into a police vehicle.
Fields conducted the inventory while Wright observed Cobb. He testified that he found a loaded firearm under the driver’s seat of the vehicle.
The vehicle was registered to Yvonne Cobb, who had a valid permit to carry a firearm. However, the firearm found in the vehicle was purchased by a male person other than Cobb and had not been reported stolen.
The state brought several charges against Anthony Cobb that stemmed from a traffic stop that led to a warrantless search of a vehicle Cobb had been driving.
The search revealed a firearm under the driver’s seat.
Cobb was charged with Class C Misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
At trial, Cobb objected to the admission of all evidence obtained from the vehicle search, including the firearm.
He also moved to include the previous arguments he had made when litigating the pretrial motion to suppress.
The Lake Superior Court said it would incorporate the arguments, but overruled the objection. Cobb asked the trial court to recognize a continuing objection, which it did.
Cobb did not pursue an interlocutory appeal, so the case continued forward.
The state sought to admit recordings to two phone calls Cobb had made to Yvonne in jail in June 2023. Cobb objected to the admission of the recordings claiming the evidence was not relevant and unfairly prejudicial.
The state responded that the evidence was relevant and that it was Cobb telling Yvonne, “You need to come in here and take responsibility for the gun that’s in your car.” The state stated the call indicated Cobb wanted Yvonne to take responsibility for the firearm and that she could testify to show her motive. Cobb asserted Yvonne wouldn’t be testifying.
After listening to each recording the court admitted the recordings over Cobb’s objection.
Exhibit 4 consisted of a video clip assembled from Cobb’s cellphone recording of the traffic stop. The state objected, claiming it was inadmissible hearsay. Cobb asserted the evidence was not being used for the truth of the matter asserted, but to prove that Cobb did not have slurred speech.
The trial court found the clip contained inadmissible hearsay and sustained the state’s objection. The trial court did agree to retain the exhibit as an offer of proof.
Cobb has requested the final jury instruction to including language “that the evidence must be so convincing to overcome every reasonable theory of innocence.”
According to Cobb, the instruction was proper under the circumstances because the state had a “purely . . . circumstantial case.” The trial court declined to give the instruction because there was direct evidence for at least one of the charges.
The jury found Cobb was guilty of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and that he had possessed a firearm.
In the next phase, the jury found Cobb guilty of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.
The trial court sentenced Cobb to concurrent sentences for an aggregate term of five years in the Indiana Department of Correction.
The first issue Cobb brought to the appellate court is whether the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution prohibited admitting evidence from a warrantless vehicle search.
The appellate court looked at Fields’ observations of Cobb when addressing the alleged constitutional violation.
“Under these circumstances, it was reasonable to believe that evidence of operating while intoxicated may be found under the driver’s seat. We therefore conclude that the search was justified as a search incident to arrest,” Judge Peter Foley wrote.
The court looked to three factors, taken from the framework of Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E. 2d 356, 361 (Ind.2005) when addressing Cobb’s state constitution argument.
It found the search of the vehicle to be reasonable, “… especially in light of the extremely high degree of suspicion that evidence of a crime was in the vehicle.”
The second issue brought to the court was whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting two recorded phone calls.
“However, we conclude that the trial court was well within its discretion to regard this brief, vague statement as presenting a relatively low risk of unfair prejudice under the circumstances,” Foley wrote. “Ultimately, in light of a trial court’s wide latitude in weighing the probative value of the proffered evidence against the danger of prejudice, we cannot say the trial court erred in declining to exclude these phone calls under Rule 403.”
Next, the court addressed the issue of whether, by failing to ensure that Cobb’s Exhibit 4 was transmitted on appeal, he waived his claim that the trial court erred in excluding the exhibit.
“Because Cobb failed to provide Defendant’s Exhibit 4 or otherwise address the omission of this exhibit from the appellate exhibit volumes, we conclude that Cobb waived his claim that the trial court erred in excluding the exhibit,” Foley wrote.
Lastly, the appellate court looked at whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to give the “reasonable theory of innocence” jury instruction.
“Because the State did not exclusively rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the actus reus of the firearm-related offense, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in declining to give the proposed jury instruction,” Foley wrote.
The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence from the warrantless search of Cobb’s vehicle, nor did it abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded phone calls.
The court also found Cobb waived his appellate challenge by failing to ensure the proffered evidence of the video clip was transmitted on appeal.
Lastly, the court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the proposed jury instruction when there was direct evidence to prove Cobb’s possession of a firearm.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Melissa May concurred.
The case is Anthony Cobb v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2085.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.