Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana, 991 N.E.2d 137

Officer responded to a disturbance; Gaddie walked toward the back yard while others were corralled in the front yard.
Officer ordered Gaddie to stop from a distance of about 45–55 feet; Gaddie did not stop and looked back but continued walking.
A second officer intercepted Gaddie about 35–45 seconds later at the next street.
Gaddie was convicted at bench trial of resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor).
The court held there was no duty to stop in a consensual encounter and reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence.
The court analyzed Fourth Amendment seizure, investigatory stops, and whether the encounter was lawful, concluding no seizure occurred and no reasonable suspicion justified a stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient given no duty to stop in a consensual encounter?	Gaddie had no duty to stop in a consensual encounter.	State contends there was a duty to stop or reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.	Reversed; no duty to stop.
Was there reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop?	No reasonable suspicion existed.	There was reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.	No reasonable suspicion; stop unjustified; conviction reversed.
Did Fourth Amendment seizure apply to this encounter?	Flight after order to stop would constitute seizure.	Corbin-based rationale could support a seizure.	No seizure occurred; defendant free to ignore order to stop; reversal.

Corbin v. State, 568 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (flight after order to stop admissible in some contexts; issue depends on seizure)
Dandridge v. State, 810 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops discussed)
Mendenhall, United States v., 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (defining seizure and what constitutes a stop)
Briggs v. State, 873 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (consensual encounter; remaining free to leave; Fourth Amendment implications)
Bovie v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (requires duty to stop for resisting law enforcement; consensual encounter analysis)
Row v. Holt, 864 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. 2007) (resisting is independent offense even if arrest invalid)
Williams v. State, 959 N.E.2d 357 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishes cases based on safety risk and being merely walkaway from police)
Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (policy rationale for resisting arrest when unlawful; not applicable to mere flight)
State v. Howell, 782 N.E.2d 1067 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (investigatory stop standards on public street; not controlling here)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (seizure defined; consent vs detention)