Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 900
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Troopers stopped Patrick Austin twice while he drove a semi-truck and trailer through Indiana after observing paperwork and travel anomalies; the first stop lasted ~45 minutes and Austin was allowed to leave.
- State investigators ran an EPIC database check linking Austin to a prior large bulk-cash seizure involving the same truck/trailer, and the first trooper requested a canine unit to wait ahead.
- A second trooper stopped Austin for two traffic violations, had a narcotics dog sweep the exterior (dog alerted), and obtained a warrant; searches of cars in the trailer revealed ~40 kg of cocaine.
- Austin was charged with two counts of dealing in cocaine (Class A felonies), moved for a speedy trial under Ind. Crim. R. 4(B), and obtained an initial trial date within the 70-day window.
- The State moved to continue the trial for court congestion (prior inmate with an older speedy-trial claim and multiple pending matters); the court granted a continuance and Austin moved for discharge under Rule 4(B).
- The trial court denied suppression and denied discharge; Austin was convicted and sentenced; the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed (granting transfer) on the search and Rule 4(B) issues and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the collective police stops and canine sweep violated Article 1, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution | State: independent traffic violations and officers’ interdiction expertise justified stops and brief detention; canine sweep lawful and validated with warrant | Austin: second stop was a pretextual continuation of an earlier stop and the prolonged detention and canine sweep violated Article 1, § 11 | Court held police conduct reasonable under Indiana Constitution; second stop was justified by independent traffic violations and reasonable suspicion; canine sweep lawful and evidence admissible |
| Whether the trial court erred by continuing trial for "court congestion" and denying discharge under Ind. Crim. R. 4(B) | State: continuance justified by prior speedy-trial movant in custody longer, multiple pending criminal matters, lack of jury availability and witness logistics; continuance reduced to a reasonable later trial date | Austin: court could have tried him during an apparent open week (August 15); contends congestion finding was inaccurate and discharge required | Court held the trial court’s congestion finding was not clearly erroneous; continuance permissible and denial of discharge affirmed |
| Standard of appellate review for trial-court findings of congestion under Rule 4(B) | State: trial-court factual findings should be reviewed for clear error | Austin: claimed abuse of discretion standard | Court held mixed approach: legal questions de novo; factual findings of congestion reviewed for clear error with deference to trial court; defendant bears burden to show finding was inaccurate |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 2010) (Article 1, § 11 totality-of-the-circumstances test and officer-focused analysis)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (factors for evaluating reasonableness under Article 1, § 11)
- Quirk v. State, 842 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 2006) (traffic stop detention limits and canine sweep detention analysis)
- Mitchell v. State, 745 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. 2001) (permitting officers to enforce traffic violations even when they have unrelated suspicions)
- Clark v. State, 659 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. 1995) (trial-court congestion findings entitled to deference; appellate review for clear error)
- Cundiff v. State, 967 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. 2012) (Crim. R. 4 implements speedy-trial rights and should not be a vehicle for technical dismissal)