Patterson v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1902
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Patterson was convicted of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana in Marion Superior Court.
- Officer Dotson stopped Patterson for a minor traffic violation (failure to signal).
- During the stop, Dotson smelled burnt marijuana from Patterson's vehicle, prompting a request for backup to search the car.
- Patterson stepped out; during a protective pat-down, Dotson felt an object in his pocket and retrieved a bag containing marijuana.
- Dotson seized the marijuana but issued a criminal summons rather than arresting Patterson; he challenged suppression as unlawful search and seizure.
- The trial court denied suppression; Patterson was convicted, and the appeal argues improper admission of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the pat-down search supported by reasonable suspicion that Patterson was armed? | Patterson contends no sufficient basis. | State argues odor, high-crime area, and danger justify suspicion. | Yes; totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion. |
| Was Dotson's identification of the odor of burnt marijuana sufficiently trained to establish reliability? | Qualification to recognize marijuana odor was not shown. | Officer had formal training and experience to identify the odor. | Yes; Dotson qualified to recognize burnt marijuana odor. |
| Was the marijuana seizure permissible under the plain-feel doctrine during the Terry pat-down? | Seizure was unlawful; plain feel not satisfied. | Item identified as narcotics immediately after pat-down; plain-feel applicable. | Yes; seizure justified under plain-feel (Dickerson) doctrine. |
| Does Patterson's state-constitutional claim require separate analysis or waiver? | Ind. Const. claim should be addressed with independent analysis. | Waived due to lack of authority or independent analysis. | Waived; state-constitutional claim not pursued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. State, 899 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. Ct. App.2008) (distinguishable on issue of officer qualifications to identify odor)
- Rybolt v. State, 770 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App.2002) (distinguishable; supports consideration of safety factors in Terry stop)
- Washburn v. State, 868 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. Ct. App.2007) (reasonable-suspicion standard and totality of circumstances)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (high-crime-area considerations in stop and safety concerns)
- Dickerson (Minn. v. Dickerson), 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain-feel justification for contraband during lawful pat-down)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (traffic stops are dangerous; officer safety factors weigh)