Tyler R. Browder v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 212
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Officer Ball stopped Browder's Pontiac after running its license plate and finding it was registered to a different vehicle (a silver Audi). Browder could not produce ownership paperwork.
- Ball ran Browder's license and criminal-history checks (several minutes) and found a reference to an auto-theft; no registration for the Pontiac was found in Browder's name.
- About 15–17 minutes into the stop, Ball continued questioning Browder about ownership and the auto-theft reference and asked if there was anything illegal in the car.
- Three minutes later (≈17 minutes total), Browder volunteered consent to search the vehicle; Ball gave a Pirtle warning and cautioned that searches can uncover illegal items.
- Ball found a glass pipe in the center console that tested positive for THC; Browder was arrested and convicted after the trial court denied his suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Browder's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment | Continued questioning and records checks were related to the stop’s purpose (mismatched plate, possible theft); reasonable suspicion justified brief additional detention | Stop was complete after license/plate checks (~15 minutes); further questioning and detention unlawfully extended the stop | Court held brief extension (2–3 minutes) was justified by reasonable suspicion (mismatched plate, lack of paperwork, criminal-history reference) |
| Whether consent to search the vehicle was voluntary | Consent was given after warnings; officer warned about possible discoveries and Pirtle advisement; totality of circumstances shows voluntariness | Consent coerced by prolonged detention and removal from vehicle; Pirtle warning was incomplete | Court held consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; search lawful |
| Whether evidence from the warrantless search should be suppressed | Evidence admissible because stop extension and consent search were constitutional under federal and state law | Evidence should be suppressed due to Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 11 violations | Court affirmed admission of paraphernalia and conviction |
| Whether Article I, § 11 (Indiana) provides greater protection than Fourth Amendment here | Officer’s further questioning and brief removal were reasonable given intrusion, suspicion, and law enforcement need | State intrusion was high and alternatives (warrant, seize car) existed; state constitutional protections should exclude the evidence | Court applied Litchfield balancing and found the brief additional intrusion reasonable under Indiana Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (Fourth Amendment protects privacy and dignity against unwarranted state intrusion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic stop is a seizure; any traffic violation can justify a stop)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to traffic violation are permissible if they do not measurably extend the stop)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (officers may not prolong a stop beyond its mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (no rigid time limit for Terry stops; courts consider diligence and reasonableness)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent to search determined under totality of circumstances)
- Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590 (Ind. 2008) (warrantless searches based on voluntary consent are consistent with federal and Indiana constitutions)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (Article I, § 11 balancing factors: degree of suspicion, degree of intrusion, law enforcement needs)