*1 C.D.T., supra, at 1047. Because Matter of marijuana bag officer discovered
during weapons for and the incrimi- a search immediately
nating character was officer, un-
to the the search was authorized thus, and, marijuana Terry
der seizure
was valid under the States Constitu- United Accordingly,
tion. we conclude in ad-
court did not commit reversible error marijuana into
mitting the evidence.
Affirmed. JJ., BARTEAU,
GARRARD and concur. Baker, III, Johnson, Smith,
Robert M. Pence, Heath, Indianap- Wright & Densborn olis, Appellant. for Elberger, Carlberg, Ronald E.
James E. McKinney Evans, Indianapolis, for & Bose Appellees. ATHLETIC
INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL OPINION ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant- ROBERTSON, Judge. Defendant, The School Athletic Associa- Indiana tion, appeals the trial court’s Inc. [IHSAA] E. CARLBERG James Jason b/n/f enjoining the enforcement order Carlberg Carlberg, and Donna S. “Transfer Rule” Appellees-Plaintiffs. student, Carlberg, trans- who had Jason private high public school to a ferred from unrelated to athletics without one Appeals of Indiana. parents. Under move his an attendant circumstances, pro- Rule have been vided swimming team on the following transfer. The sub- issues with several raises five resolution of parts. because the pre- supreme court this case is controlled cedent, consolidate following dispositive issue: Transfer Rule is viola- whether the IHSAA to the Fourteenth Amendment tive when Constitution high unrelated to another for reasons school to athletics. affirm.
We
FACTS
undisputed.
Ja-
facts are
dispositive
parents in Car-
Carlberg
with his
lives
son
*2
mel, Indiana, and
ineligi-
had attended the
Carmel-
IHSAA tournament which the
Clay public schools from the first through
participated
ble student has
forfeited.1 This
However,
eighth grades.
the
Jason attended
appeal ensued.
grade
the ninth
Preparatory
Brebeuf
School for the 1993-1994 school
where
DECISION
varsity
he swam on the
swim team. At
Brebeuf, however,
present
The resolution of the
case is con
grades
Jason’s
suffered
Mahan,
by Sturrup
fell in
v.
peer group
because he
with a
that had
trolled
study.
been motivated to
Simultaneous-
Sturrup,
Jason’s
for academic and
financial
Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States
to Carmel
applied
deny
Constitution when
to
year.
triggered
school
Jason’s transfer
varsity
participate
to
athletics
Rule,
IHSAA’s Rule
the Transfer
which where the student had transferred from one
that,
present
under the
circum-
another
to
for reasons unrelated
stances,
Jason has
limited
to
to athletics.
Rule” which if a student is rules, appropriately enjoined and the trial court its per- IHSAA but is enforcement. Id.2 mitted to under the terms of a ultimately court order which is found to be Judgment affirmed. invalid, may, IHSAA in the interest of schools, restitution competing and fairness to forfeited,
require team victories to be individ- NAJAM, J., concurs. vacated,
ual or team records the awards re- turned, BAKER, J., receipts and the school’s separate opinion. net from concurs with split authority 1. There factually whether 2. The case is similar Avant, Ind.App., IHSAA Restitution Rule recent enforced. case of IHSAA v. Avant, (1995), Ind.App., denied, v. N.E.2d 1164 trans. which we (1995), denied, upheld enforceability trans. held that court of the IHSAA Transfer However, manifestly rule was distinguish- unreasonable could not Rule. case is Reyes, be enforced. apparently the IHSAAv. Ind. able in that the in Avant did (1995), App., challenge held on the basis of federal equal protection IHSAA could enforce its Restitution Rule. 659 the Indiana N.E.2d at 169-171. courts. BAKER, eligibility, in Judge, may be to have limited concurring. declared specific the absence of circumstances such I result reached While concur the former school. See destruction of majority, I because I am reluctant write IHSAA Rule 19-6.1. do not believe majority’s criticism our Su in the this broad classification: students who Mahan, preme Court’s decision *3 change change a in residence schools without 463, 261 Ind. by rationally parents, their related although that the Court determined possibly While will rule’s the rule regard behind the IHSAA rules the reasons discouraging effect of have the inadvertent valid, eligibility transferee were those transfers, athletically-motivated the rale is unreasonably rules became over-broad when likely a effect on more to have detrimental transferring applied to schools A legitimate transfers. better classification reasons to athletics. unrelated parents require would and to dem- students short, objective purported of onstrate the motives behind student’s eligibility prevent rules is to transferee transfer, legitimate a and in the absence of “jump- use of undue influence and school explanation, apply presump- would then ing,” practical but their effect is to severe- by tion ath- that motivated ly general. in eligibility limit the transferee letics. penalize presently The rales constituted a who to transfer student-athlete wishes Additionally, believe, for reasons elo religious for academic or reasons or quently v. Indiana set forth Anderson legitimate reasons. number of other Association, Athletic 699 at N.E.2d at 881. 305 (S.D.Ind.1988), F.Supp. 719 that Many in and of decisions both outside that actions found n use an Indiana have criticized circumstances were arbi under analysis determining equal overbreadth capricious. Although trary this court is protection issue. 598 See generally to interfere (federal (Ind.Ct.App.1992) N.E.2d associations, voluntary internal affairs decisions hold that under traditional a when an association violates can intervene scrutiny a rule be invali- rights property or or exercis member’s civil overbreadth). Nevertheless, due to dated powers enforce rules in an es its to make and by applying suggested even unlawful, arbitrary or malicious manner. decisions, I believe the IHSAA Woodward, Club, Inc. Auto equal pro- guarantee a of the be violation (Ind.Ct.App.1984). tection. rules, although in The transferee considering equal protec- Generally, courts to deter transfers for athletic tended regulations challenges or em- tion to statutes influence, discourage operate or for undue test, ploy test. With this a “rational basis” non-athletic, legiti prohibit transfers for valid, presumed to and will legislation is financial, religious, such mate long as the classification sustained as or social reasons. academic by related a drawn the statute is is transfer- It is that Ms. Anderson obvious legitimate interest. state ring other than athletics for reasons legitimate state goal, or N.E.2d 551. resulting no undue influence existed that interest, transferee of IHSAA’s quite simply Anderson the transfer. Ms. integrity of interscho- “preserve rule is to larger which to attend a wants recruitment, by minimizing lastic athletics oppor- social and extracurricular has more ‘jumping’ and school for athletic proselyting, tunities_ Anderson, reviewing Ms. Sturrup, 261 Ind. at reasons.” IHSAA, imme- Appellate Rules The classification with which N.E.2d at 881. sees, Court, a diately as does this that forth action is concerned is set this legitimately for rea- stu- which IHSAA rule will be ab- Anderson corresponding sons such Ms. a who transfer without
dents to affect not ever meant into rule by the sorbed change of residence students’ Consequently, her. she and others like will
her be a victim of an over-
inclusive rule.... It is
application of the ineligibility rule’s to bar
Ms. Anderson other transfer students situated,
similarly is unreasonable.... Similarly, situation, made a
determination that transfer was athletics, yet,
not motivated in the inter- of discouraging
ests other students from
transferring for athletic the IHSAA
chose limit eligibility. athletic
This action is result of an rule,
over-reaching above, which as I stated
is not related to its As a
result, I believe trial de-
termined that the IHSAA’s actions in enforc- capricious. the rule were conclusion, Judge Chief Brooks
his comments the IHSAA trans-
feree rule: provision application
The rule lacks for the
of common sense and reasonableness. Its
rigid enforcement fails to cure or address abuse for which it was intended. Puré simple, overkill, it’s which the hopes
Court rectified in the immediate
future. at 731. CENTER,
ST. MARY’S MEDICAL
INC., Appellant-Plaintiff, BROMM, Appellee-Defendant.
Freddie G. Appeals of Indiana. 19, 1996.