Thomas Pinner v. State of Indiana
59 N.E.3d 275
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Cab driver reported a passenger dropped a handgun exiting a cab near Studio Movie Grill and said he feared robbery; described a "black male wearing a blue jacket" accompanied by a blonde black female.
- Officers Palmer and Stewart located Pinner inside the theater lobby with a blonde-haired black woman matching the description.
- Two uniformed, armed officers approached Pinner, asked if he had a gun, and Pinner said no but acted nervous and hesitated.
- When Pinner stood at the officers' request, Officer Palmer saw the butt of a handgun in Pinner’s front pocket, secured the gun, and arrested Pinner for carrying a handgun without a license (enhanced by prior felony).
- Pinner moved to suppress the gun; the trial court denied the motion, the court of appeals granted interlocutory review, and the majority reverses suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Pinner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was consensual or a seizure requiring Fourth Amendment justification | The approach and questioning by two uniformed officers, who stood in front of him, amounted to a nonconsensual investigatory stop | Initially conceded it was a Terry stop; on appeal argued the encounter was consensual until the gun was seen | Encounter was a Terry stop (not consensual); officers’ show of authority would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop | No reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot; mere lawful possession of a firearm is insufficient | Argued before trial court there was reasonable suspicion; on appeal did not meaningfully defend reasonable suspicion | State failed to show reasonable suspicion; stop unsupported by Terry and Fourth Amendment requires suppression |
| Whether the gun should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment | Evidence obtained from an unconstitutional stop must be suppressed | Sought to justify stop as either consensual or supported by reasonable suspicion | Because the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and was not consensual, the gun must be suppressed |
| Applicability of Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 11 | Pinner also argued violation of state constitution (raised but not necessary to decide) | State did not prevail on Fourth Amendment argument; appellate majority declined to address state-constitutional claim | Majority did not reach Article 1, § 11 because Fourth Amendment resolution was dispositive; dissent would have upheld under Article 1, § 11 |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (factors indicating a seizure include show of authority and tone suggesting compelled compliance)
- Jackson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. 2008) (deference to trial-court factual findings in constitutional review)
- Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006) (State bears burden to show warrant exception)
- Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. 2013) (objective test for whether a person is free to leave)
- Marlone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (possession of a firearm alone does not establish reasonable suspicion)
- Segar v. State, 937 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (burden on State to justify warrantless seizure)
- Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2006) (Article 1, § 11 reasonableness test factors)