Kevin Harris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
18A-CR-1242
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 19, 2019Background
- Police responded to a call about a man unresponsive in a parked car at a gas station; Officer Ramos confirmed the subject was Kevin Harris.
- Through the driver-side window Ramos observed a syringe capped with an orange cap in an open pouch on the passenger seat.
- After rapping on the window and opening the door to rouse Harris, Ramos had Harris step out; Ramos then saw two large baggies of a crystal substance in the pouch that he believed to be methamphetamine.
- Based on the syringe and visible baggies, Ramos suspected overdose and drug dealing, handcuffed Harris for officer safety, recovered the baggies, and arrested him; Harris later made inculpatory statements to police.
- Harris was charged with dealing methamphetamine and moved to suppress the methamphetamine and his statements; the trial court denied suppression and certified the order for interlocutory appeal after a belated petition.
- The Court of Appeals denied the State’s motion to dismiss for procedural delay, held the automobile-exception and probable cause justified the warrantless seizure, affirmed denial of the suppression motion, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / timeliness of interlocutory appeal | The appeal should be dismissed for Harris’s belated certification request and untimely notice of appeal. | Court should accept the belated filings; Harris obtained trial-court certification and sought appellate review. | Court has discretion to overlook forfeiture; accepted jurisdiction and addressed merits. |
| Fourth Amendment — warrantless seizure of methamphetamine | Officer Ramos had probable cause and the automobile exception permitted a warrantless search/seizure. | Cuffing/detention was unlawful and tainted the seizure as fruit of the poisonous tree. | Probable cause existed from open view of syringe and baggies; automobile exception applied; no Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Indiana Const. Art. I, §11 — reasonableness of search/seizure | Officer’s conduct was reasonable under totality: high suspicion (overdose/dealing), low intrusion, and strong law-enforcement interests. | The seizure was unreasonable and violated the state constitution’s search-and-seizure protections. | Balancing test favors reasonableness; seizure did not violate Article 1, §11. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 2005) (broad view of vehicle "ready mobility" for automobile exception)
- Hobbs v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. 2010) (automobile-exception principles and reduced privacy expectation in vehicles)
- Harbaugh v. State, 96 N.E.3d 102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (warrantless vehicle search under probable cause)
- In re D.J., 68 N.E.3d 574 (Ind. 2017) (untimely notice of appeal affects forfeiture, not jurisdiction; appellate discretion to hear merits)
- In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014) (untimely notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional bar)
- Mullen v. State, 55 N.E.3d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Fourth Amendment protections apply to states; warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985) (vehicle mobility and diminished privacy support automobile exception)