State of Indiana v. Kevin Ford (mem. dec.)
10A05-1604-CR-820
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- On Jan. 28, 2016 Officer Joe Baker observed a red Chevrolet HHR with a partially obscured plate, followed it to a gas station, saw a white male (later identified as Kevin Ford) exit the driver’s side, then left to set up radar.
- Minutes later Baker observed the same vehicle, initiated a traffic stop after a lane-change without signaling; Stephanie Littrell was driving and Ford was the front passenger.
- Baker ran Ford’s license, learned Ford was an habitual traffic violator (HTV), arrested him, and drove him to the station; Ford later admitted at the station that he had been driving earlier.
- The State charged Ford with Level 6 felony operating as an HTV; Ford moved for a probable-cause hearing claiming Baker lacked probable cause to arrest him.
- After a hearing where Baker and Littrell testified, the trial court found no probable cause and dismissed the charging information without prejudice; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in dismissing charging information for lack of probable cause | State: dismissal was improper because lack of probable cause is not a statutory ground to dismiss an information and factual disputes belong at trial | Ford: arrested without probable cause; testimony supported dismissal | Court: reversal — trial court abused its discretion by conducting a pretrial mini-trial and dismissing for lack of probable cause |
| Whether Ford’s custodial admission should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings | State: admission was volunteered and not the product of custodial interrogation | Ford: statement was made in custody before Miranda warnings and should be suppressed | Court: trial court acted prematurely in suppressing; voluntariness and Miranda applicability are factual questions for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mateyko v. State, 901 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (appellee’s brief required; appellate court may reverse on prima facie showing of error)
- Isaacs v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (dismissal for factual insufficiency is improper; facts and credibility are for trial)
- Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard articulated)
- Flowers v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 2000) (lack of probable cause is not a statutory ground to dismiss an information)
- Helton v. State, 837 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (pretrial motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence is improper)
- White v. State, 772 N.E.2d 408 (Ind. 2002) (Miranda protects against custodial interrogation; volunteered statements are not interrogation)