J.J. v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 310
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Around 2:00 a.m., Macy’s asset-protection manager observed two groups of males creating a loud disturbance inside Macy’s and moving toward the store exit; an individual briefly lifted his shirt, prompting a report that someone might be armed.
- Mall and store employees reported the disturbance and pointed out the groups in the parking lot to responding officers.
- A Dick’s employee told officers three males had just run around a corner as police arrived and gave a brief description (one heavier-set, two skinnier; all black).
- Officers located a group of three males matching that description in the parking lot; Officer Silcox approached and asked about weapons. One companion admitted having a weapon and was frisked; Officer Russo patted down J.J. and found a loaded 9mm handgun.
- The State charged J.J. in juvenile court with dangerous possession of a firearm and carrying a handgun without a license; J.J. moved to suppress the gun arguing the stop/search lacked reasonable suspicion. The juvenile court denied suppression and found J.J. true for dangerous possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop/search J.J. in the mall parking lot | J.J.: The stop lacked reasonable suspicion; evidence from pat-down should be suppressed | State: Officers had collective, articulable facts (disturbance, report of a gun, employees pointing, a fleeing group matching description) supporting an investigatory stop and pat-down | The stop and pat-down were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, §11; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review standard for admissibility rulings and deference to trial-court factual findings)
- Swanson v. State, 730 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (officer may briefly detain on reasonable, articulable suspicion under Terry)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishing investigatory stop and frisk standards)
- Davis v. State, 858 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Article 1, §11 reasonableness analysis parallels Terry's totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Frazier v. Mellowitz, 804 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (issues not raised in the trial court are waived on appeal)
- Kovats v. State, 982 N.E.2d 409 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (merger of counts appropriate where dual convictions would implicate double jeopardy)