J.B. v. State of Indiana , 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 366 ( 2015 )

Apr 23 2015, 9:09 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kimmerly A. Klee Gregory F. Zoeller
Greenwood, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian Reitz
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.B., April 23, 2015
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1409-JV-688
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court, Juvenile Division.
The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Petitioner. The Honorable Geoffrey Gaither,
Magistrate.
Cause No. 49D09-1407-JD-1740
Sharpnack, Senior Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
[1] J.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s determination that he committed an act
1
that constituted dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor.
We affirm.
Issue
[2] J.B. raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the juvenile court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence obtained from J.B.’s encounter with a police
officer.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On the evening of July 12, 2014, Officer John Wallace of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department was on patrol in his marked car when he saw
J.B. and three other individuals walking along the sidewalk. J.B., who was
seventeen years old at the time, saw Wallace’s police car and threw a black
object into a yard as he continued walking. Officer Wallace was 125 feet from
the group, and he noted that the object was “in an L shape” and was
approximately six inches long. Tr. p. 16. Officer Wallace has extensive
training and experience with firearms, and he believed that the object J.B.
discarded was a handgun. Id. at 14.
1
Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5 (1996).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 2 of 8
[4] Officer Wallace drove up to J.B. and his companions, got out of the car, and
instructed them to sit on the sidewalk. Officer Wallace also requested
assistance. When additional officers arrived, Officer Wallace walked to the
yard into which he had seen J.B. discard the object. Officer Wallace found a
nine millimeter handgun. There was nothing else in the yard that matched the
size and color of the object that Officer Wallace saw J.B. discard.
[5] On July 14, 2014, the juvenile court authorized the State to file a petition
alleging J.B. to be a delinquent child. On August 12, 2014, the court held an
2
evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, J.B. moved to suppress all evidence
obtained as a result of his encounter with Officer Wallace. The court denied
J.B.’s motion, determining that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain
J.B. At the end of the hearing, the court determined that J.B. was a delinquent
child and scheduled a dispositional hearing.
[6] After the September 2, 2014 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court awarded
J.B. to the guardianship of the Indiana Department Correction “until the age of
21, unless sooner released by the Department of Correction.” Appellant’s App.
p. 11. The court recommended that J.B. be held at the Department of
Correction “for a period of 6 months.” Id. at 12. This appeal followed.
2
At the hearing, the court also heard evidence in a separate juvenile case against J.B. under lower cause
number 49D09-1406-JD-1487. The claims, evidence, and judgment in that lower cause number are not part
of this appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 3 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[7] J.B. argues that Officer Wallace detained him in violation of his constitutional
protections against illegal search and seizure, as set forth in the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11 of the
Indiana Constitution. J.B. argues the juvenile court erred in admitting the
evidence obtained from Officer Wallace’s encounter with J.B.
[8] The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and we review the admission of evidence only for abuse of
discretion. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind. 2012). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, and
we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, but
we also consider any uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Patterson
v. State, 958 N.E.2d 478, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Fourth Amendment
[9] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
[10] The protections granted by the Fourth Amendment have been extended to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Sanders v. State, 989 N.E.2d 332,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 4 of 8
335 (Ind. 2013). The Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless search unless
a valid exception to the warrant requirement exists. Id. When a search is
conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an
exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search. Berry v.
State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 1998).
[11] One exception is abandoned property. It is not subject to Fourth Amendment
protection and may be lawfully seized without a warrant. Gooch v. State, 834
N.E.2d 1052, 1053-54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Abandonment rests
upon whether the defendant relinquished an interest in the property to the point
that he or she no longer retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in it at the
time of the search. Hines v. State, 981 N.E.2d 150, 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Abandoned property is inadmissible if the abandonment occurs after the owner
is improperly detained. Gooch, 834 N.E.2d at 1054.
[12] In the current case, J.B. discarded the handgun in a yard just after he saw
Officer Wallace’s police car. Officer Wallace found it laying on the ground,
accessible to all. Thus, J.B. relinquished his interest in the gun. Furthermore,
Officer Wallace had not yet approached or spoken to J.B. when J.B. discarded
the handgun. Thus, J.B. was not yet seized or detained at the time of
abandonment, and the handgun was properly admitted into evidence over J.B.’s
Fourth Amendment objection. See Wilson v. State, 825 N.E.2d 49, 52 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005) (bag containing cocaine was properly admitted into evidence
because defendant abandoned the bag prior to being seized by police).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 5 of 8
[13] As another exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, an
officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop of an individual when, based on a
totality of the circumstances, the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion
that criminal activity is afoot. Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind.
2006). The investigatory stop, also known as a Terry stop, is a lesser intrusion
on the person than an arrest and may include a request to see identification and
inquiry necessary to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions. Id. Reasonable
suspicion is determined on a case by case basis. Patterson, 958 N.E.2d at 482.
The reasonable suspicion requirement is met where the facts known to the
officer at the moment of the stop, together with the reasonable inferences from
such facts, would cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe criminal activity
has occurred or is about to occur. Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 171 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004).
[14] In this case, Officer Wallace saw J.B. discard what he believed to be a firearm
in a yard as J.B. walked along a sidewalk. J.B. discarded the firearm upon
seeing Officer Wallace’s marked police car. This information provided a
particularized and objective basis for Officer Wallace to conclude that J.B. had
illegally possessed a weapon, which justified the temporary detention of J.B.
See W.H. v. State, 928 N.E.2d 288, 295 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (officers had
reasonable suspicion to believe a juvenile had possessed a handgun because the
juvenile displayed to another person an item tucked into the juvenile’s
waistband in a manner consistent with the possession of a handgun), trans.
denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 6 of 8
[15] J.B. points to testimony by Officer Wallace that he was not absolutely certain
that the object was a handgun when he saw J.B. throw it away. This argument
is a request to reweigh the evidence. Officer Wallace told the court he saw a
black object that was six inches long and was “in an L shape.” Tr. p. 16. He
believed that it was a firearm, which is sufficient to establish a reasonable,
articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Officer Wallace’s temporary
detention of J.B. did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Article 1, Section 11
[16] Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall
not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be
seized.
[17] Although the language of section 11 tracks the Fourth Amendment, section 11
requires a different analysis that focuses on the totality of the circumstances of a
search or seizure. McIlquham v. State, 10 N.E.3d 506, 511 (Ind. 2014). The
analysis turns on a balance of: 1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or
knowledge that a violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method
of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the
extent of law enforcement needs. Id.
[18] In this case, Officer Wallace had a high degree of suspicion or knowledge that
J.B. had illegally possessed a firearm. He saw J.B. discard what appeared to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 7 of 8
a handgun in a yard just after J.B. noticed Officer Wallace’s police car.
Furthermore, the degree of intrusion was minimal, because Officer Wallace had
J.B. sit on the sidewalk for a short time, without restraints, until other officers
arrived and Officer Wallace confirmed that the object in question was a
handgun. Finally, the extent of law enforcement needs was high, because
Officer Wallace needed to confirm that the item was a handgun and, if so,
secure it so that it did not endanger anyone in the neighborhood. He also
needed to determine why J.B. had discarded a weapon in a yard. Under the
totality of the circumstances, Officer Wallace did not act unreasonably in
detaining J.B. to confirm his observation that J.B. had discarded a handgun,
and there was no violation of J.B.’s rights under article 1, section 11. See W.H.,
928 N.E.2d at 297.
[19] J.B.’s federal and state constitutional claims are without merit, and the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from Officer
Wallace’s encounter with J.B. See id.
Conclusion
[20] For the reasons, stated above, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
[21] Affirmed.
[22] Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1409-JV-688 | [Hand-down date] Page 8 of 8