Charla P. Richard v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 171
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Jan. 24, 2012, Officer John Weir stopped a vehicle for traffic violations; Christopher Fields (driver) and Charla Richard (front passenger) were occupants.
- Officer Weir knew of an outstanding warrant for Fields and arrested him, then deployed his narcotics-detection dog, Rex, around the stopped vehicle.
- Rex alerted at the driver’s door, giving officers probable cause to suspect drugs in the vehicle.
- Officers removed Richard from the car and Officer Bridget Hite conducted a search; when Richard raised an arm, a tin with two baggies of methamphetamine fell from her shirt.
- Richard was charged with possession of methamphetamine; she moved to suppress the drug evidence on Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution (Art. 1, §11) grounds. The trial court denied suppression, convicted her after a bench trial, and sentenced her to 1.5 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dog alert to drugs in a vehicle supplies probable cause to arrest and search a passenger | Dog alert provides probable cause to believe vehicle contains drugs, supporting arrest/search of occupants | Mere presence as passenger is insufficient to establish probable cause specific to Richard | Yes. Dog alert to vehicle gave probable cause to believe any occupant had constructive possession; arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful |
| Whether the search of Richard violated Article 1, §11 of the Indiana Constitution | Search was reasonable given high suspicion from dog alert and minimal intrusion | Search unreasonably intrusive as to passenger absent individualized suspicion | Search reasonable under Indiana Constitution balancing test (suspicion high, intrusion minimal, law‑enforcement need significant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013) (warrantless-search exceptions and general Fourth Amendment principles)
- Ward v. State, 903 N.E.2d 946 (Ind. 2009) (search incident to a lawful arrest exception)
- State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (dog sniff can supply probable cause that a vehicle contains illicit drugs)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (occupants of a vehicle may be inferred to have joint or constructive possession permitting probable-cause arrests)
- United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) (distinguishing cases where informer singles out a specific guilty individual)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (Indiana constitutional reasonableness test balancing suspicion, intrusion, and law‑enforcement needs)