Tag Archives: criminal attorney

Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell Scores Major Indiana Court of Appeals Victory

In a surprising reversal, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a decision of the Porter Superior Court denying a Motion to Suppress filed by Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell.  In Marshall v. State of Indiana, 64A05-1710-CR-2368, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of Attorney Campbell’s Motion to Suppress Evidence based on an improper traffic stop.

In the early morning on October 29, 2016, a Reserve Officer with the Hebron Police Department initiated a traffic stop of the Defendant’s vehicle based on the Officer’s observation that the Defendant “was going over the posted speed limit.” The Officer did not issue a citation for speeding, but instead decided to pursue an investigation for Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated (“OWI“).  The Defendant was eventually charged with Class A Misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, Endangering a Person and Class C Misdemeanor Operating a Vehicle With an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent to .08 But Less Than .15.

In the Porter Superior Court on August 4, 2017, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell filed a Motion to Suppress, alleging the traffic stop was unlawful. The trial court denied Attorney Campbell’s motion on August 8, 2017.  On August 9, 2017, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell filed a Renewed Motion to Suppress, again alleging the traffic stop was unlawful, and requested a hearing on the motion. The trial court granted Attorney Campbell’s request for a hearing and held a hearing on Marshall’s renewed motion to suppress on August 17, 2017. The trial court ultimately denied Attorney Campbell’s renewed motion to suppress on August 18, 2017, and certified the Order for interlocutory appeal.

For the first time in Indiana history, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell argued before the Indiana Court of Appeals that an officer’s testimony of his “visual speed estimate” was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to believe a defendant was exceeding the speed limit.

In its Order denying Attorney Campbell’s renewed motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that “an officer’s testimony of speeding, without radar, pacing or some number, when based upon his or her expertise and ability to draw conclusions about the excessive speed of the vehicle, in general terms, is sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of a traffic infraction justifying a stop.” In support of its conclusion, the trial court cited four cases from other jurisdictions.  The Indiana Court of Appeals found this neither controlling nor persuasive.

In this case, the Officer was using a radar, but he could not testify at hearing or at deposition what speed the Defendant was actually traveling and what the radar showed as Defendant’s speed.  During a pre-trial deposition, the Officer could not recall the posted speed limit at the location of the traffic stop, but he claimed he knew at the time of the stop what the speed limit was in the area, but testified he “thought maybe it was forty miles an hour[.]” Later at the suppression hearing, the Officer indicated he had visited the location of the stop prior to the hearing and that the speed limit was fifty miles per hour. The Officer testified he did not pace the vehicle, did not write down the speed at which he observed the vehicle traveling prior to the traffic stop, and did not observe the Defendant commit any other traffic infractions.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reasoned that because the Officer could not testify regarding the speed of the vehicle in more specific terms, he did not have specific articulable facts to support his initiation of a traffic stop, and therefore the traffic stop violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.   The case has been remanded back to the trial court to determine what, if any, charges can be substantiated absent the now suppressed evidence gathered after the traffic stop was initiated.  The State of Indiana is expected to dismiss the case based upon a lack of evidence due to the evidence that was suppressed by the Opinion, but as of the time of this article, no motions have yet been filed by the State.

If you have been charged with Operating While Intoxicated in Indiana or you feel your rights have been violated, Porter County Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Campbell will fight to preserve your innocence!  CALL TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. (219) 841-5683.

Indiana Supreme Court to Hold Oral Argument at Portage High School October 30, 2015

Indiana_Supreme_Court

The Indiana Supreme Court will travel to Portage High School in Portage, Indiana on Friday, October 30, 2015 to hear the case, Leonard Suggs v. State of Indiana (02S03-1508-CR-510).  The general public is invited to attend, along with students from various schools in Porter County. (The link to the Official Page can be found here.)

Oral argument is a process by which both sides of a case argue based upon the content of their briefs, which are generally twenty five (25) page documents outlining the authorities and arguments for their respective sides.  In this case, present will be the State of Indiana (by its Deputy Attorney General, Katherine Cooper) and Mr. Suggs’ Criminal Defense/Appellate Attorney, Paul S. Miller of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

This case is a criminal case. In order for criminal cases to reach the Indiana Supreme Court, one (1) of three (3) things must have occurred: first, the case must have already been decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals, or second, the case involves an issue of the Indiana Constitution, or third, a mandatory Indiana Supreme Court review of all death sentences. In this case, the Indiana Appellate Court has already ruled, and the Indiana Supreme Court elected to grant transfer and hear this case.

The present case involves events that took place in a bowling alley in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  The record states that the Defendant threw a bowling ball at the side of the head of his then girlfriend, Evelyn Garrett, causing her injury and pain.

The case was filed under charges of Domestic Battery, as a Level 6 Felony.  In order to charge the crime as such, the State must prove that the victim was “living as the spouse” of the Defendant. According to the Indiana Court of Appeals Record, the two cohabitated for two (2) years, sharing a bedroom and engaging in an intimate relationship.  The Defendant, Leonard Suggs, argues that this is insufficient to demonstrate that the victim was “living as a spouse”, while the State of Indiana contends that the two were clearly within such definition.  Up to this point, both the Allen County trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals has agreed with the State of Indiana.  The Indiana Supreme Court will be the final authority on the case, and will bind future decisions based on its opinion.

SFT Lawyers looks forward to seeing you there!