Kevin M. Clark v. State of Indiana
977 N.E.2d 459
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Owner of a self-storage facility reports possible trespass by a tenant living in a storage unit; police respond around midnight.
- Clark is observed leaving the unit with a black duffel bag; he sits the bag on the ground when asked to stop.
- Clark admits marijuana is in the bag; Sergeant McHenry searches the bag without a warrant or Clark’s consent and discovers marijuana, meth precursors, and related items.
- Based on findings, police suspect a meth lab on site; a drug-sniffing dog indicates drugs in Clark’s car; marijuana is found in the vehicle; the trunk emits an ammonia-like scent consistent with meth manufacture.
- Officers open a toolbox in the trunk, determine the lab is inactive, and obtain a search warrant for the vehicle; Trooper Shortt processes the lab.
- Clark is charged with attempted dealing in methamphetamine, possession of chemical reagents with intent to manufacture, and possession of marijuana; after trial, he is convicted of attempted dealing in methamphetamine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the bag search without a warrant permissible? | Clark argues Fourth Amendment violation due to illegality of search. | State contends stop and search were justified by reasonable suspicion and admission. | No abuse; search admitted as reasonable under circumstances. |
| Was Trooper Shortt's lay testimony on conversion ratios admissible? | Clark argues testimony should be expert; lay opinion improper. | State argues testimony is skilled witness evidence based on experience. | No abuse; testimony admissible as lay/skilled witness evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 1998) (conditions for warrantless searches)
- Overstreet v. State, 724 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (investigative stop reasonable suspicion standard)
- Eichholtz v. State, 752 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (911 call from identified source supports suspicion)
- Spillers v. State, 847 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 2006) (admission of criminal activity supports probable cause)
- Mariscal v. State, 687 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (skilled witness concept and permissible lay testimony)
- Stephenson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2001) (police experience as foundation for expert-like testimony)
- Aldrich v. Coda, 732 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (extrinsic evidence and tainting considerations in searches)