Victor Gersdorff v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing Feb 17 2017, 8:09 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Deborah Markisohn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Victor Gersdorff, February 17, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1608-CR-1785
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda Brown,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49F10-1404-CM-21772
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 1 of 15
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Victor Gersdorff (Gersdorff), appeals his conviction for
Count I, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-
11(1); Count II, possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-
48-4-8.3(a)(1)(b); Count III, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C
misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-30-5-2(a); and Count IV, operating a vehicle with a
schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C
misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-30-5-1(c).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Gersdorff raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial
court abused its discretion by admitting evidence discovered following a police
sobriety checkpoint.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] During the early morning hours of April 27, 2014, a sobriety checkpoint was
operated by the Indianapolis Metro Police Department (IMPD) at 1305 Broad
Ripple Avenue, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lieutenant Mark McCardia
(Lieutenant McCardia) of the IMPD supervised the checkpoint. He had been
part of “hundreds” of checkpoints and had been the commanding officer on “at
least” fifty checkpoints. (Transcript pp. 25, 26). The checkpoint was approved
by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership, the police chief, and the
prosecutor’s office. Ten days prior to the checkpoint being operated, a news
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 2 of 15
release was emailed to several television, radio, and print media organizations,
which listed the date, time, and location of the checkpoint.
[5] The specific objective of the checkpoint was to “deter drunk driving, [and]
apprehend drunk drivers.” (Tr. p. 15). Its location was chosen because “crash
data from the past few years” had revealed “a lot of drunk driver arrests and
drunk driving crashes” in that area. (Tr. p. 15). Multiple signs, “like five (5)
foot reflector signs,” were posted to alert drivers of the upcoming checkpoint,
and the checkpoint was avoidable from all directions. (Tr. p. 19). The
checkpoint was well lit with street lights, vehicle flashers, emergency
equipment, and reflective signs and cones. The weather was clear and the
temperature was approximately sixty degrees Fahrenheit.
[6] In working the checkpoint, the officers were mandated to follow a specific
procedure. Specifically, officers were required to direct two vehicles at the
same time to the checkpoint. They could “not deviate” from this sequence, and
all vehicles in the sequence had to be checked. (State’s Exh. 1). The officers
were required to identify themselves and “advise the motorist ‘You have been
stopped at a Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership Sobriety Checkpoint.
We use checkpoints to deter impaired drivers. Have you had anything to drink
this evening?’” (State’s Exh. 1). They then asked to see the driver’s license and
registration. A vehicle would be detained for two minutes or less unless further
investigation was warranted. If a driver exhibited signs of impairment, the
officers would instruct “the driver [to] pull the vehicle into the ‘pull-off’ area.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 3 of 15
(State’s Exh. 1). That night, eighteen vehicles went through the checkpoint,
with two drivers being apprehended.
[7] Gersdorff was the first car that pulled into the checkpoint that evening, driving
“approximately maybe twenty-five miles per hour.” (Tr. p. 42). He stopped at
Captain Donald Weilhamer’s (Captain Weilhamer) position. When Gersdorff
rolled down his window, Captain Weilhamer observed “a strong odor of
marijuana coming from the vehicle.” (Tr. p. 43). Gersdorff had “problems
pulling [his driver’s license] out of his wallet” and “he was slow at answering”
questions. (Tr. p. 43). Captain Weilhamer asked Gersdorff to exit his vehicle.
After Gersdorff moved to the side, Officer Robert Ferguson (Officer Ferguson),
who was assisting Captain Weilhamer, “moved the vehicle out of the line.”
(Tr. p. 44). Captain Weilhamer informed Gersdorff that he wanted to do some
field sobriety checks. While talking to Gersdorff, Captain Weilhamer noticed
Gersdorff’s dilated and bloodshot eyes and “slower than usual” walk. (Tr. p.
44). Captain Weilhamer administered three field sobriety tests, two of which
Gersdorff passed. While Gersdorff participated in the field sobriety tests,
Officer Ferguson moved Gersdorff’s vehicle. In the car, Officer Ferguson
noticed a “very strong” smell of marijuana. (Tr. p. 73). The odor was
particularly strong “right where the center console” was. (Tr. p. 74). He raised
the center console and noticed a black bag. In opening the bag, Officer
Ferguson found a “raw, green, leafy substance” along with “a pipe,” which is
“commonly used to ingest marijuana into the system.” (Tr. p. 75).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 4 of 15
[8] Captain Weilhamer informed Gersdorff of his Miranda rights. Gersdorff agreed
to answer some questions and told Captain Weilhamer that he had smoked
marijuana earlier that day. Captain Weilhamer read Gersdorff the implied
consent law and Gersdorff agreed to a blood draw. After the blood draw,
Captain Weilhamer arrested Gersdorff. Upon searching him, Captain
Weilhamer disovered a black box in Gersdorff’s lower pocket that contained a
“greenish-brown, leafy-type substance,” which later tested positive for
marijuana. (Tr. p. 61).
[9] On April 27, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Gersdorff with
Count I, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; Count II, possession
of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count III, operating while
intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor. The State later amended the Information
to add Count IV, operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled
substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C misdemeanor. On July 12,
2016, the trial court conducted a bench trial. During trial, Gersdorff moved to
suppress the evidence discovered during the sobriety checkpoint, which was
denied by the trial court. At the close of the evidence, the trial court found
Gersdorff guilty as charged. At the sentencing phase, the trial court merged
Count IV into Count III and entered judgment of conviction on Counts I, II,
and III. The court sentenced Gersdorff to concurrent terms of 365 days with
361 days suspended to probation on Count I, 365 days with 361 days suspended
to probation on Count II, and 60 days with 50 days suspended to probation on
Count III.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 5 of 15
[10] Gersdorff now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[11] Gersdorff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
evidence discovered during a sobriety checkpoint, which he claims was in
violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The standard of
review for admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. Weinberger v.
Boyer, 956 N.E.2d 1095, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. The trial court
abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. Even when
the trial court erred in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence, this court will
reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice. Id.[12] Article I, Section 11, must be liberally construed to guarantee the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, and to protect
them against unreasonable search and seizure. King v. State, 877 N.E.2d 518,
521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The purpose of this provision is to protect against
unreasonable police activity in areas of life that Indiana citizens regard as
private. Id.[13] In Gerschoffer, our supreme court “join[ed] those jurisdictions rejecting the
contention that all roadblocks are per se violations of state constitutional
requirements” and set out the criteria to determine whether a particular sobriety
checkpoint “was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner.”
Gerschoffer v. State, 763 N.E.2d 960, 966 (Ind. 2002). The court held that “[a]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 6 of 15
minimally intrusive roadblock designed and implemented on neutral criteria
that safely and effectively targets a serious danger specific to vehicular
operation is constitutionally reasonable, unlike the random and purely
discretionary stops we have disapproved.” Id. Among the relevant factors to be
considered and weighed are: (1) whether the roadblock was staged pursuant to
a formal, neutral plan approved by appropriate officials; (2) the objective,
location, and timing of the checkpoint, taking these factors into account to
determine whether the seizure was well calculated to effectuate its purpose; (3)
the amount of discretion exercised by field officers conducting the checkpoint,
with a goal of minimal discretion to ensure against arbitrary or inconsistent
actions by the screening officers; (4) the degree of intrusion and whether the
roadblock was avoidable; (5) whether the surrounding conditions of the
checkpoint were safe; and (6) whether the checkpoint was effective. Id. at 967-
70. We will evaluate each factor in turn.
I. Formal, Neutral Plan
[14] Gersdorff claims that Lieutenant McCardia’s “mere assertion that ‘we have
standardized plans’ and that ‘there are all sorts of plans involved’ does not
allow this [c]ourt to review whether it was a reasonable, neutral plan.”
(Appellant’s Br. p. 14). In Gerschoffer, the guidelines police followed in
conducting the roadblock were not made a part of the record on appeal, so our
supreme court was unable to “assess their efficacy.” Id. at 967. Instead, the
court cited with approval guidelines set out in a Connecticut case, State v.
Boisvert, 671 A.2d 834 (Conn. App. 1996). In Boisvert, the guidelines
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 7 of 15
promulgated by the public safety commissioner required, “among other things,
advance approval by ranking officers; a careful choice of location, date and time
‘after considering many factors, including the safety of the public and those
conducting the operation and the potential inconvenience to the public’;
advance publicity; and assurance to drivers that the stop was routine.”
Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 967 (quoting Boisvert, 671 A.2d at 837).
[15] Our review of the evidence indicates that the checkpoint had been approved by
the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership, the police chief, and the
prosecutor’s office. The choice of location was based on “crash data from the
past few years” which had revealed “a lot of drunk driver arrests and drunk
driving crashes” in that particular area. (Tr. p. 15). The officers conducting the
sobriety checkpoint had participated in many checkpoints and had several years
of experience of conducting them. The State presented evidence and entered
into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1, the checkpoint’s briefing, its goals, objectives,
and procedures—which was implemented by Lieutenant McCardia while
conducting the checkpoint.
[16] The checkpoint itself was well advertised with multiple signs alerting drivers of
its presence. It was well lit with street lights, reflective signs, and cones. While
conducting the checkpoint, the officers were required to follow a specific
procedure, which mandated the pattern of cars to be pulled into the checkpoint,
and provided the officers with a specific script to follow and advisements to
administer.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 8 of 15
[17] Ten days prior to the operation of the checkpoint, a press release notifying the
date, time, and location of the checkpoint was sent to the following radio,
television, and print media: the Speedway Police Department; Advocates
Against Impaired Driving; the Associated Pres; Fox 59 News; the Indiana
Herald; the Indianapolis Star; the Indy Recorder; La Voz De Newspaper;
Media Relations, IMPD; the Southside Times; The Daily Journal; The
Greenfield Reporter; Univision; WEDJ; WFBQ Q95; WFMS Radio; WFYI;
WIBC Radio; WISH TV Channel 8; WRTV Channel 6; WTHR Channel 13;
WTLC Radio; and the City of Lawrence. Although Gersdorff contends that
there was no proof that someone actually publicized the impending roadblock,
Gerschoffer noted that “[l]aw enforcement agencies cannot control what the
media chooses to report, of course, and may not have funds to pay for
publicity.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970-71. While no evidence is included
that the information from the press release was disseminated by the media to
the general public, the record includes evidence supporting a reasonable
inference that the press release was distributed. See also Sublett v. State, 815
N.E.2d 1031, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (finding a nearly identical sobriety
checkpoint constitutional under the Indiana Constitution where the police “did
not know whether the media actually published the information”).
Accordingly, as a formal, neutral plan was in place to conduct the checkpoint,
we cannot say that this element weighs against its constitutionality.
II. Objective, Location, and Timing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 9 of 15
[18] Next, Gersdorff claims that “the objective, location and timing of the roadblock
was not sufficiently established at trial.” (Appellant’s App.p. 16). In Gerschoffer,
the stated objective—rejected by the court—for the checkpoint was a “montage
of objectives, including the generic law enforcement goal of ‘mak[ing] sure
everybody is doing what they’re supposed to [do].’” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at
968. In contrast here, the objective was “[t]o deter impaired driving and
increase the risk of apprehension of impaired drivers.” (State’s Exh. 1). The
timing of the checkpoint was 11:00p.m. until 1:30a.m. Pursuant to Lieutenant
McCardia’s testimony, the location was chosen based on previous years’ crash
data which had revealed numerous drunk driver arrests and crashes in the
particular area. Again, this element weighs in favor of the constitutionality of
the checkpoint.
III. Police Discretion
[19] Considering police discretion a “critical factor,” the Gerschoffer court requires
“sufficiently explicit guidance to ensure against arbitrary or inconsistent actions
by the screening officers.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 968-69. The record
reflects that standardized instructions were given to ensure that officers
addressed drivers in a consistent manner. Specifically, State’s Exhibit 1 details
the routine to be followed during the checkpoint as follows:
Sequence of Vehicle Selection and Public Interaction
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 10 of 15
Do not deviate from the sequence of vehicle selection. All
vehicles in the sequence will be checked, including police and fire
vehicles.
Identify yourself and advise the motorist “You have been stopped
at a Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership Sobriety
Checkpoint. We use checkpoints to deter impaired drivers.
Have you had anything to drink this evening?” Check for DWI
clues. Advise the motorist you would like to see a driver’s
license and registration.
Vehicles should be held in line no longer than 2 minutes.
If alcohol is detected or additional investigation is needed, have
the driver pull the vehicle into the “pull-off” area.
Large trucks may be checked on the street to lessen change of
damage to the parking lots. However, trucks should be pulled
out of the way so not to block traffic.
Please assist vehicles out of the checkpoint.
Avoidance of a checkpoint alone does not constitute a legal stop.
Testimony by officers at trial confirmed that the officers behaved accordingly
during the checkpoint. The officers pulled in two vehicles at the same time after
which they gave the drivers the introductory statements and acted in conformity
with the script. Given the lack of discretion and the scripted, consistent manner
in which the officers had to conduct themselves, this element weighs in favor of
constitutionality of the checkpoint.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 11 of 15
IV. Degree of Intrusion
[20] “In evaluating the degree of intrusion, we also consider whether the roadblock
was avoidable. The more avoidable a roadblock is, the less it interferes with the
liberty of individual drivers.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 969. Here, prior to
arriving at the checkpoint, drivers were alerted by “five (5) foot reflector signs.”
(Tr. p. 19). Lieutenant McCardia testified that no matter in which direction a
car was travelling, the checkpoint was avoidable from all directions.
Accordingly, and Gersdorff agrees, the signage and possibility of avoiding the
checkpoint weigh in favor of it being constitutional.
V. Safety of the Checkpoint
[21] Here, the State offered testimony that the checkpoint was located in a well-lit
area, where vehicles could be pulled off the roadway into an adjacent parking
lot without impending traffic. See Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970; see also Sublett,
815 N.E.2d at 1039 (“[T]he checkpoint was safely conducted in a well-lighted
area and detained motorists were diverted into an adjacent parking lot”). The
evidence indicates that the weather was clear and the temperature was
approximately sixty degrees Fahrenheit. Drivers were stopped in the eastbound
lane of Broad Ripple Avenue or 62nd street. Every first two cars were waived
into the Flanner and Buchanan parking lot, used by the officers to conduct the
sobriety check. There was lighting in the parking lot and the officers also used
vehicles with flashers and reflective signs to alert drivers to what was
happening. Accordingly, this element weighs in favor of its constitutionality.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 12 of 15
VI. Effectiveness
[22] Lastly, Gersdorff disputes the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint.
Lieutenant McCardia testified to the effectiveness of the checkpoint in that the
ratio of people stopped were consistent “with the statistics that were presented.”
(Tr. p. 24).
[23] The Gerschoffer court, in analyzing the effectiveness of the checkpoint, observed
that “advance publicity” of a sobriety checkpoint can “scare[] those who would
drink and drive off the roads.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970. The court held
that, given the “fairly low percentage” of OWI arrests 1 obtained in that
roadblock and the lack of evidence of advance publicity of the roadblock, it
could not infer that that the checkpoint had “effectively deterred potential
offenders.” Id. at 971. Here, out of eighteen vehicles that were stopped at the
checkpoint, the police made two arrests. Compared to the two arrests out of
seventy stops in Gerschoffer, the arrest rate here, while not a high percentage in
itself, was significantly higher.
[24] “Apprehension rates are not, however, the end of the question.” Gerschoffer,
763 N.E.2d at 970. “[R]oadblocks can effectively deter OWI, such that even a
modest arrest rate may simply reflect the fact that advance publicity scared
those who would drink and drive off the roads.” Id. However, we also noted
1
In Gerschoffer, the police stopped seventy out of 198 cars “funneled through the checkpoint” and made only
two arrests for OWI. Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 13 of 15
that while the existence of the sobriety checkpoint was released to the media at
large, here, there is no evidence that this information was disseminated to the
general public. Without direct evidence showing that the checkpoint was
actually publicized, it is more doubtful that the checkpoint had a deterrent
effect. Therefore, while the arrest rate for operating while intoxicated was
higher than that obtained in Gerschoffer, we cannot say that the effectiveness
factor weighs significantly in favor of the State.
VII. Summary
[25] Gersdorff concedes two Gerschoffer factors—police discretion and degree of
intrusion—but argues that the others were not satisfied. We disagree. There is
substantial evidence in the record that the officers implemented a properly
approved, neutral plan that included, among other things, advanced
distribution of a media release to a significant number of local media outlets.
Additionally, the record establishes that a narrow objective was established for
the checkpoint, the timing/location was based on OWI arrest statistics, and the
checkpoint was operated under safe conditions. The checkpoint was somewhat
effective in deterring drunk driving. We hold that the sobriety checkpoint in
this case, all things considered, was constitutional under Article I, Section 11 of
the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it admitted the evidence discovered pursuant to Gersdorff’s stop at the
sobriety checkpoint.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 14 of 15
CONCLUSION
[26] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting the evidence seized following Gersdorff’s stop at a constitutionally
reasonable sobriety checkpoint
[27] Affirmed.
[28] Crone, J. and Altice, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 15 of 15