Goens v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 166
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Officer stopped Goens for purported stop lamp defect; odor of alcohol detected; Goens failed field sobriety tests and breath tests showing ACE .21.
- Goens charged with multiple OVI offenses; he moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, claiming lack of reasonable suspicion since two stop lamps were operable.
- Suppression hearing held; deposition of Officer Lengerich admitted (uncertainty on number of inoperable lamps); Garza testified only passenger-side lamp was inoperable.
- Trial court found two lamps lit, but upheld the stop as reasonable to inform driver of a burned-out lamp; interlocutory order granted; appeal accepted.
- Court held two functioning stop lamps meant no violation of IC 9-19-6-17 or IC 9-21-7-1; suppression reversed and Goens’s challenge sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion based on lamp compliance? | Goens: at least one functioning stop lamp; compliant under 9-19-6-17. | State: not in compliance with 9-19-6-17 or 9-21-7-1; good working order governs. | Yes; suppression reversed; stop invalid for lack of reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (police may briefly detain for suspected infraction; de novo review on appeal)
- Peete v. State, 678 N.E.2d 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (detention for ordinance violation; standard discussed)
- Freeman v. State, 904 N.E.2d 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (9-21-7-1 requires vehicle equipment to be in good working order; tail lamp relevance)
- Merritt v. State, 829 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. 2005) (strict construction of statutes; harmonize related provisions)
- Rager v. State, 888 N.E.2d 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (officer’s good faith belief about violation governs; mistaken belief not allowed)
- Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (limits on police discretion consistent with Fourth Amendment)