Royce Love v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 328
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At 4:00 a.m. on Aug. 4, 2013, Royce Love led police on a ~5-minute vehicle pursuit after failing to stop for lights/sirens; officers stopped his van with Stop Sticks and video recorded the stop and arrest.
- Officer Bilinski’s in-car video (Defendant’s Ex. A) shows Love exit the van, raise his hands, get on all fours, and lie face down within seconds; the video obscures later portions of the physical altercation.
- Officers testified Love ignored commands, walked away, was tased (officers said twice), and a K-9 (Bacca) was deployed; officers described a subsequent struggle in which Love squeezed/struck the dog and officers kicked/tased him to effect arrest.
- Love testified consistently with the video that he complied and later resisted only to protect himself from the dog; he argued officers used excessive force and that his actions were defensive.
- Love was convicted by a jury of (among other counts) mistreatment of a law enforcement animal (Class A misdemeanor) and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor); he appealed claiming insufficient evidence because officers used excessive force and were not lawfully performing their duties when force was used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Love) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for mistreatment of K‑9 (Class A) | Love was noncompliant; he struck/squeezed the dog and left a bite ring, so evidence supports conviction | Video shows Love quickly lay face down and later only acted to protect himself from an attacking dog; officers used excessive force, so they were not lawfully performing duties | Reversed — video indisputably contradicted officers’ testimony that Love refused orders; officers’ force was not objectively reasonable, so evidence insufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forcible resisting of officer (Class A) | Love forcibly resisted (struggled/kicked) while officer Gray was performing duties; tasers/dog deployment were reasonable responses to resistance | Same as above: Love’s actions were defensive to excessive/unreasonable force after he had complied; cannot convict for resisting when officers used excessive force | Reversed — same reasoning: officers were not lawfully engaged when they tased/deployed dog; evidence insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Liston v. State, 250 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. 1969) (appellate duty to probe/sift evidence; cannot affirm on minuscule or speculative proof)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362 (Ind. 2014) (appellate courts may review video evidence but must not reweigh evidence)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (videotape that indisputably contradicts testimony can overcome deference to trial findings)
- Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (if officer uses unconstitutionally excessive force, officer is no longer lawfully performing duties for resisting‑charge purposes)
- Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing forcible‑resisting conviction where State presented no evidence defendant used force or was violent)