The law of 4th Amendment Search and Seizure is clear—that: “The rights of the people, to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures, 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 persons or things to be seized.”
Although the wording may be clear, the enforcement and legal interpretation has been one of the most hotly debated bodies of law for some time. On February 9, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down a decision that justly put the rights of citizens above the interests of law enforcement.
The Facts: An Indianapolis woman was arrested and searched after she walked away from an officer. The police responded to a disturbance at a local convenience store, saw a woman walking away and said “Hey, I need to talk to you” after exiting his cruiser. The woman continued walking and walked into her apartment which was located nearby. Officers approached the apartment and began knocking on the door. The woman eventually appeared and the officers arrested her for resisting law enforcement as an A Misdemeanor. Pursuant to the arrest, the officers conducted a pat down search and found drugs in her pocket. She was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance as a D Felony. A Marion Superior court denied her motion to suppress evidence for improper search ans seizure but certified an order for interlocutory appeal.
The Decision: The Court of Appeals utilized the long standing principle as outlined in Gaddie v. State 10 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. 2014), the we all have the freedom and right to walk away from the police. Because the search of the woman was conducted pursuant to an invalid arrest and seizure of her person, the search should be thrown out. Judge John Baker wrote for the panel and stated: “Our Supreme Court abrogated this line of cases, holding that the third element of the resisting law enforcement by fleeing statute must be understood to require that such order to stop rest on probable cause or reasonable suspicion, that is, specific, articulable facts that would lead the officer to reasonably suspect that criminal activity is afoot” And with probably the best line in the opinion stated, “Our Supreme Court recognized that a person’s freedom to walk away is rendered illusory if she is subjected to criminal penalty for exercising that freedom.”
What this means going forward: the Court, simply put, reminded us that law enforcement needs at least ‘reasonable suspicion’ that criminal activity is afoot in order to legally detain someone; and that our rights to be free of unreasonable searches by the government is more important than having an officers questions answered by a random citizen when no criminal activity is afoot. If you have been charged with a crime involving what you believe to be an improper search or seizure of yourself or your property, you need a trial lawyer who has experience with litigating 4th Amendment search and seizure issues in court. As a former prosecuting attorney, Kevin Potts has the experience to assist you in your time of need. Call or email Kevin today: 317-951-0087
