26 N.E.3d 1010
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police observed a silver Buick leave a house suspected of drug activity; an officer followed and saw the driver make a right turn after activating a signal only at the intersection, not for the required 200 feet.
- Officer Kauffman stopped the car; he and another officer smelled marijuana. Peak was the sole occupant; he admitted his license was suspended.
- During a pat-down, officers felt a package consistent with marijuana and Peak admitted possession; a search at the station turned up marijuana in his underwear weighing over 30 grams.
- Peak was charged with possession of marijuana >30 grams (Class D felony). His counsel did not file a pretrial motion to suppress; Peak filed pro se motions and sought new counsel.
- At a pretrial hearing counsel stated he believed a suppression motion would be meritless; counsel raised suppression at trial and was denied. Peak was convicted and appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and a Fourth Amendment violation of the traffic stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a pretrial motion to suppress and not objecting to marijuana admission | Counsel’s tactic was reasonable because the traffic stop and search were lawful; failing to file a meritless motion is not deficient | Peak: counsel should have filed to suppress evidence based on an illegal traffic stop; failure prejudiced outcome | Counsel was not ineffective: failing to pursue a meritless suppression claim is not deficient and would not have changed outcome |
| Whether the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment | The State: officer had objective reasonable suspicion because Peak failed to signal for the required 200 feet before turning | Peak: he did not intend to turn within the 200 feet and stopped at a red light, so statute doesn’t apply; stop was unlawful | Stop was lawful: failure to signal for 200 feet gives objective reasonable suspicion; subjective intent to turn later does not negate that |
| Whether the signaling statute (I.C. §9-21-8-25) exempts stops at red lights or requires continuous travel | State: statute requires signaling when intending to turn regardless of stops; plain meaning controls | Peak: statute requires signaling for 200 feet of continuous travel before turning; stopping defeats that requirement | Court: statute applies regardless of a stop at a light; duty to signal for 200 feet is not limited by stopping |
| Whether failure to object at trial waived review or constitutes fundamental error | State: no Fourth Amendment violation, so no error; thus no fundamental error to excuse waiver | Peak: admission of marijuana was fundamentally erroneous because stop lacked basis | No fundamental error: seizure was constitutional, so admission was not fundamentally erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2013) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
- Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2009) (objective reasonableness and deference to counsel strategy)
- Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. 2007) (presumption counsel rendered adequate assistance)
- Croom v. State, 996 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (traffic stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Sanders v. State, 989 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. 2013) (warrantless stop permitted on reasonable suspicion of traffic violation)
- State v. Bulington, 802 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. 2004) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Rhodes, 950 N.E.2d 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishable facts on signaling impossibility defense)
- Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statute’s signaling duty applies regardless of particular roadway or stop)
- Santana v. State, 10 N.E.3d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (violation of signaling statute supplies reasonable suspicion)
- Stowers v. State, 657 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (no deficiency for failing to raise meritless claim)
- Delarosa v. State, 938 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. 2010) (narrow fundamental error exception for waived objections)
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (state constitutional claim waived when not argued separately)