Phillip Whitley v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 739
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- At ~12:35 a.m. on Feb 20, 2014, IMPD stopped a pickup truck driven by Phillip Whitley for wrong license plate and discovered his license was suspended; truck was parked partially in the roadway.
- Officers decided to impound the truck under IMPD policy; Officer Huddleston performed an on‑scene inventory search and found >7 grams methamphetamine in a decorative box, prescription pills, rolling papers, and other items. Whitley was also searched and had a meth pipe.
- Huddleston did not complete inventory paperwork; he told Officer Lantzer what he found and Lantzer recited some items in a probable‑cause affidavit. Photographs of the interior later showed additional items not listed.
- Whitley moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, §11 of the Indiana Constitution because IMPD failed to follow its inventory procedures and the search was pretextual. Trial court denied suppression; interlocutory appeal granted.
- Court of Appeals reviewed reasonableness of the impoundment and the inventory search, focusing on propriety of impoundment, conformity with departmental policy, and whether deviations rendered the search a pretext for investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Whitley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of standing to challenge search | Waived at trial; State did not contest standing below | Whitley asserts he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle | State forfeited standing challenge on appeal; court assumed Whitley had standing |
| Was impoundment lawful? | Impoundment was authorized by statute and caretaking function | Conceded by Whitley that impoundment was proper | Impoundment was proper |
| Was the inventory search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | Inventory search was an established exception; officers followed routine caretaking intent despite paperwork lapses | Deviations from IMPD General Order 7.3 (no notebook/tow‑slip entries, incomplete inventory) made the search a pretext for investigation | Although officers failed to fully comply with policy, search was not a pretext and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment |
| Was the search reasonable under Article 1, §11 of the Indiana Constitution? | Reasonableness under §11 mirrors Fourth Amendment factors; the totality of circumstances supports reasonableness | Argues independent state‑constitutional protection and that policy deviations render search unreasonable under §11 | Search was reasonable under Article 1, §11 given lawful impoundment, minimal intrusion, and law enforcement needs; policy deviations did not invalidate the search |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory policy must guard against using inventories as ruses to find evidence)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (standardized inventory procedures support admissibility absent bad faith)
- Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Indiana on reasonableness and inventory searches under Fourth Amendment)
- Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427 (inventory searches must conform to procedure to avoid being pretextual)
- Edwards v. State, 762 N.E.2d 128 (State must provide evidentiary basis showing search conformed to policy)
- Jackson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 11 (minor deviations from policy do not automatically invalidate inventory searches)
- Wilford v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1023 (inventory reasonable where officer testimony established standard procedure)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Litchfield reasonableness test under Article 1, §11)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (standing to challenge search for drivers of borrowed cars when consent shown)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (federal test for expectation of privacy)