Philip R. Davis v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 171
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 13, 2016, Sgt. John Shank stopped Philip Davis for driving 49 mph in a 30 mph zone; an electronic ticket showed Shank’s printed name, badge number, and agency.
- The State filed a complaint and summons (electronic) that likewise bore Shank’s printed name but not a handwritten signature.
- Davis moved to dismiss, arguing the printed name did not satisfy the statutory requirement of an officer’s signature; the trial court denied the motion.
- At trial Davis asserted a necessity defense, claiming his car was overheating; he sought to admit repair records dated after the stop, which the court excluded.
- The State asked about Davis’s specialty (DePauw University) license plate; the court allowed the question and the jury found Davis liable for the speeding infraction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an electronic/printed officer name satisfies the statutory "officer's signature" on a traffic complaint/summons | Electronic/printed names comply; statute does not require handwritten signature | Printed name in same font as document is not a signature; dismissal required | Court: Electronic/printed signature valid; substantial compliance met; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether excluding vehicle repair records was erroneous | Records irrelevant and not properly authenticated; no foundation | Records showed repairs shortly after stop and supported necessity defense | Court: Exclusion proper; defendant waived by not making offer of proof and records were untimely/not tied to condition at time of stop |
| Whether questioning about specialty license plate was admissible | Relevant to rebut necessity by showing Davis’s education/means to maintain vehicle | Plate evidence irrelevant and prejudicial | Court: Admission was arguably irrelevant but any error harmless given Davis’s admission of speeding and alternative options available |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockhart v. State, 38 N.E.3d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for Rule 12(B)(6) review)
- Ford v. State, 650 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (mechanically stamped signatures satisfy statutory signature requirements)
- Hamill v. City of Carmel, 757 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (substantial compliance meets statutory objectives for traffic forms)
- Hernandez v. State, 45 N.E.3d 373 (Ind. 2015) (elements of necessity defense)
- Griffith v. State, 31 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2015) (trial court’s discretion in evidentiary rulings)