Earl D. Hammond v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 352
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Police stopped a vehicle after observing traffic violations; officers smelled burnt marijuana and saw alcohol in the car. Driver Schrader failed field sobriety tests and admitted recent marijuana use with passengers including Hammond.
- Detective Stout spoke with Hammond at the passenger side; Hammond rolled down his window and the officer smelled marijuana.
- Detective Stout asked Hammond to step out and asked to search his pockets; Hammond replied “if you want to.” Hammond then admitted he had marijuana and tapped his pocket.
- Detective Stout handcuffed Hammond to retrieve a bag of marijuana from his front pocket; Miranda warnings were read afterward.
- Hammond moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing his consent was invalid because he was in custody and therefore entitled to a Pirtle advisement of the right to counsel; the trial court denied the motion, admitted the evidence, and a jury convicted Hammond of Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether Hammond was in custody when he consented; it concluded he was not, so Pirtle did not apply and the consent/search were valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hammond in custody when he consented to the search? | State: He was not in custody; this was an investigatory stop and consent was voluntary. | Hammond: He was not free to leave and was effectively in custody, so Pirtle required advisement and waiver before consent. | Hammond was not in custody under an objective test; the stop was non-custodial. |
| Was Pirtle advisement required before consent? | State: No, because Pirtle applies only when the person is in custody. | Hammond: Yes, because he was effectively detained and thus entitled to Pirtle warnings. | Not required; Pirtle did not apply. |
| Was Hammond’s consent valid without counsel/waiver? | State: Yes; absent custody, no counsel/waiver requirement. | Hammond: No; without Pirtle or waiver, consent was invalid. | Consent was valid because Hammond was not in custody when consenting. |
| Was admission of the seized marijuana an abuse of discretion? | State: Admission proper because search constitutional. | Hammond: Admission improper because search unconstitutional without valid consent. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion; evidence properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975) (person in custody must be advised of and waive right to counsel before consenting to a search)
- Sellmer v. State, 842 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. 2006) (totality of coercive police conduct can create custodial conditions triggering Pirtle)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. 2008) (custody determined by objective test—would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Meriwether v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (factors relevant to custody include handcuffs, vigor of interrogation, implied lack of freedom to leave, and length of detention)