Hill v. State, 956 N.E.2d 174

Hill was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.
Police conducted a Terry stop and pat-down of Hill after he matched a suspect description and behaved suspiciously during a traffic stop context.
The pat-down yielded a baggie of marijuana; Hill was arrested for that and later transported to jail.
During transit, police observed Hill making movements suggesting he might be concealing contraband, leading to a search of the back seat where a gun was found.
Hill filed a motion to suppress, arguing the pat-down and subsequent gun discovery violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, §11 of the Indiana Constitution.
The trial court denied suppression; the gun was admitted at trial, and Hill was convicted, prompting this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pat-down search was constitutionally reasonable.	Hill	Hill	Pat-down unlawful; no reasonable belief Hill was armed and dangerous.
Whether the gun found was admissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.	Hill	Hill	Gun evidence suppressed; no independent source, taint not attenuated.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes limited police power to stop and frisk for weapons with reasonable suspicion)
Williams v. State, 754 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (supported need for specific safety concerns; distinguishable facts)
Jett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (generalized suspicion insufficient to justify pat-down)
Hanna v. State, 726 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine limitations; independent source not shown)
Banks v. State, 681 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (pat-downs require specific inferences of danger; not mere hunch)