90 N.E.3d 677
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Jan. 14, 2015, ISP Trooper Wells stopped a rental car on I-65 for driving below the speed limit in the left lane; driver Westmoreland and passenger Doran J. Curry were in the vehicle.
- Trooper Wells checked licenses and rental paperwork; Curry appeared nervous and evasive when questioned about visiting his grandmother.
- Trooper Wells summoned a nearby canine unit; the drug-detection dog alerted at the vehicle. Trooper Miller removed Curry, conducted a pat-down, and located 100 grams of heroin secreted in Curry’s clothing; Curry was arrested. The stop lasted about ten minutes.
- Curry was charged with Dealing in a Narcotic Drug (Level 2) and Resisting Law Enforcement (Class A misdemeanor); he admitted being a habitual offender. He was convicted at jury trial and sentenced to 25 years (plus a 10-year habitual-offender enhancement).
- On appeal Curry challenged (1) the legality of the pat-down and evidence admission, (2) admission of his jail/interview statements under Evidence Rule 404(b), and (3) the appropriateness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Curry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether canine sniff/prolongation of stop violated Fourth Amendment | Canine arrived quickly and sniff occurred while officer awaited criminal-history/warrant checks; sniff did not materially extend the stop | Trooper Wells unreasonably prolonged the stop by asking extraneous questions to wait for the canine | Held: No Fourth Amendment violation — sniff did not materially increase stop duration (stop ≈10 minutes) |
| 2) Legality of pat-down/search of Curry | Canine alert plus Curry’s suspicious behavior (nervousness, delay exiting, renter status, no luggage) provided probable cause to arrest and justified search incident to arrest (pat-down lawful) | Canine alert alone does not justify pat-down; officer lacked reasonable suspicion Curry was armed/dangerous | Held: Pat-down/search admissible — court treated Curry as in custody and found probable cause to arrest based on totality of facts, so search incident to arrest lawful |
| 3) Admission of Curry’s statements under Evid. R. 404(b) | Statements largely explained the seized contraband and operation; even extrinsic-act references were probative on knowledge/intent | Statements describing other courier trips and sales methods were extrinsic bad-acts improperly admitted under 404(b) | Held: Some statements describing other courier trips/sales methods should not have been admitted, but error was harmless given possession, on-the-body contraband, and Curry’s admission; conviction affirmed |
| 4) Appropriateness of sentence | N/A (State supported sentence) | 25+10 years inappropriate | Held: Sentence not inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) given quantity of heroin and Curry’s criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621 (Ind. 2017) (principles on canine alerts, probable cause, and custody/search issues)
- Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013) (minor traffic violation supports stop; sniff not a search but detention cannot be unreasonably prolonged)
- Hobbs v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010) (canine sniff need not be supported by suspicion; procedures for canine sniffs)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniffs during lawful traffic stops are not searches absent prolongation of the stop)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (officer’s mission during traffic stop and limits on unrelated prolongation for a dog sniff)
- Rybolt v. State, 770 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (limits on pat-downs where officer’s justification was routine drug-suspect profiling)
- Richard v. State, 7 N.E.3d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (canine alert to vehicle supported probable cause to search vehicle occupants in context)
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. 1993) (Evid. R. 404(b) intent exception requires defendant to present a particular contrary intent)
- Bell v. State, 13 N.E.3d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (search incident to arrest lawful where officer had probable cause from odor/other facts; pat-down lawful as search incident to arrest)