In three (3) recent cases, the Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals have added to the well established common law regarding Fourth Amendment Rights–in other words, which searches and seizures are permissible and which are not.
Most notably, in Clark v. State of Indiana, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2013), the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a conviction of Dealing in Methamphetamine as a Class A Felony. The Court determined that the police had no reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Clark because the officers did not have reason to believe that an offense had been committed at the time of the detention. Thus, searching Mr. Clark’s bag, where the police found marijuana and methamphetamine, was illegal, and therefore, should have been excluded from evidence at the trial court level when the Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress. The State attempted to argue that a second (legal) search was conducted of the Defendant’s property which led to ultimately obtaining the evidence, but Indiana Supreme Court Justice David noted, “[W]e note that it [the same reasoning determining the search to be illegal] would also apply to the same evidence when it was re-found following execution of the search warrant. Because none of the evidence should have been admitted at trial against him, the conviction cannot stand.”
However, the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals upheld searches in Sanders v. State of Indiana, 989 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2013) and Croom v. State of Indiana, 2013 WL 5630984 (Ind. App. 2013). In Croom, the officer spotted the Defendant’s vehicle with a suspicious temporary paper license place issued from an Indiana auto dealer. The plate turned out to be valid, but nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that reasonable suspicion did exist for the traffic stop, even though Defendant was able to prove that no violation of law in fact occurred. Similarly, in Sanders, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that the officer’s belief that the driver’s window tint was in violation of Indiana statute, even though after testing the window tint was within specified limit(s), constituted reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.
I guess the moral to the story here is that officers are given much broader discretion to make traffic stops than to search a suspect’s person or property.
If you feel your rights have been violated and that the government did not have a right to search your person or property, call SFT Lawyers for a FREE CONSULTATION TODAY! (219) 841-5683.