81 N.E.3d 1078
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Late morning, Oct. 1, 2016: Avon PD dispatch reported a suspicious male approaching women in a Kroger parking lot, carrying a backpack and possibly a runaway; Lt. Paris located K.G. matching the description.
- Lt. Paris ordered K.G. to stop, asked his age and whether he was a runaway; K.G. said he was "almost seventeen" and not a runaway, and said two backpacks belonged to a friend "Jacob" but gave no identifying information.
- Lt. Paris conducted a pat-down for officer safety; during the frisk he felt and removed a box of ammunition from K.G.’s pocket, then handcuffed K.G.
- After finding ammunition, Lt. Paris searched K.G.’s backpacks and discovered a loaded handgun, two alcohol-filled bottles, and a glass pipe with burnt marijuana residue.
- State charged K.G. as a delinquent for acts that would be misdemeanors as an adult (carrying handgun without a license; illegal possession of alcoholic beverage; possession of paraphernalia). K.G. moved to suppress the evidence; the juvenile court denied the motion and adjudicated K.G. delinquent.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the pat-down lacked the particularized reasonable suspicion required for a Terry frisk, suppressed the evidence, and reversed the delinquency adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless pat-down/frisk was justified under Terry v. Ohio | The stop was supported by reasonable suspicion from the dispatch and K.G.’s presence; officer safety justified a frisk | The frisk violated the Fourth Amendment because Lt. Paris lacked particularized reasonable suspicion K.G. was armed and dangerous | Held: frisk was unjustified; no particularized reasonable suspicion before officer felt the ammunition; pat-down violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Admissibility of evidence found during and after the frisk | Evidence was admissible because the frisk and subsequent searches were lawful and the stop was consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal frisk and search | Held: evidence suppressed as it was discovered during and following an improper frisk; reversal of adjudication |
| Whether nervous/evasive behavior and lack of identifying info justified frisk | Nervousness and evasiveness are relevant factors supporting reasonable suspicion | Nervousness alone is of limited significance; failure to identify backpack owner did not create particularized officer-safety concern | Held: evasiveness/nervousness and inability to ID "Jacob" insufficient to justify a frisk under the circumstances |
| Whether evidence of backup call or belief another person was nearby justified frisk | Officer had reason to call for backup and suspected a companion, supporting safety concerns | Trial record did not establish when officer learned of companion or called backup; State bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement | Held: State did not prove those facts existed prior to the frisk; they do not cure the unlawful frisk |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (permits brief investigatory stops and limited weapon frisk for officer safety)
- Pinner v. State, 74 N.E.3d 226 (indicia of reasonable suspicion reviewed de novo for constitutional claims; nervousness of limited significance)
- Mullen v. State, 55 N.E.3d 822 (State bears burden to prove an exception to the warrant requirement for warrantless searches)
- Mitchell v. State, 745 N.E.2d 775 (pat-down invalid where officer failed to articulate reasons for safety concerns)
- L.W. v. State, 926 N.E.2d 52 (stop based on conjecture rather than specific articulable facts violates Fourth Amendment; convictions reversed)