Atkins v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-951 |
| Citation | 143 N.E.3d 1025 |
| Parties | Tony Bethel ATKINS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Phyllis J. Emerick, Bloomington, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Ian McLean, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Tony Atkins appeals the trial court's grant of the State's motion to correct error regarding the trial court's earlier grant of Atkins' motion to suppress.1 We reverse and remand.
[2] Atkins raises two issues, which we revise and restate as:
[3] On the evening of October 12, 2017, at 7:45 p.m., Darren Hsu and Mark Lambert reported to the Bloomington Police Department that two men with handguns entered their apartment and demanded marijuana. The men beat Lambert until he was unconscious and stole marijuana and electronics, including four laptops. Hsu reported that, earlier in the evening, "G" stopped by the apartment to purchase marijuana and behaved oddly. Hsu and Lambert knew "G" through Ricky Spence.
[4] The officers located Spence, and Spence reported that "G" was Glenn Williams and that Williams lived at the Town and Country Apartments. Spence reported that Williams' cousin, Atkins, was in town from Indianapolis and was with Williams on that day. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Detectives Jacob Hunter, Josh Taylor, and Baker2 went to the apartment complex and located a vehicle with a license plate number that was registered to "Williams." The officers then observed two men leaving an apartment building and approached them. When questioned, the two men identified themselves as Williams and Atkins.
[5] Other uniformed officers arrived on the scene. Detective Hunter and Officer Fabris3 were wearing body cameras, which captured the following events. Officers separated the two men, and Detective Hunter began talking to Atkins. Detective Hunter searched Atkins' person for weapons and found no weapons. Detective Hunter informed Atkins that they were investigating a burglary and that Atkins' "name was put out there." State's Ex. A. Atkins claimed that he had just arrived in Bloomington twenty minutes earlier from Indianapolis.
[6] Atkins was carrying a backpack, and Detective Hunter asked if the backpack contained any weapons. Atkins responded that it did not, and Detective Hunter asked if he could check the backpack. Atkins consented, and Detective Hunter said, "You can say no, request a warrant, or ask for a lawyer if you want." Id. Atkins continued to deny that he had any weapons. They went to a lighted area, and Atkins opened his backpack for Detective Hunter. The backpack contained "multiple [laptops] or electronic devices," and Detective Hunter requested to see the laptops. Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Atkins zipped the backpack and said, "Why do I got [sic] to pull my stuff out?" State's Ex. A. Atkins continued to deny that he had anything to do with the incident. Atkins said he had a "witness" to corroborate his claim that he had just arrived in Bloomington, and Atkins started to walk toward the witness. Id. Detective Hunter requested Atkins to come back and repeatedly told Atkins to sit down on a curb. According to Detective Hunter, it is a "fair statement" that Atkins "was not free to leave" at that point. Tr. Vol. II p. 18. After a discussion with another officer, Atkins said he needed to use the restroom, and Detective Hunter told Atkins to sit back down.
[7] Detective Hunter informed Atkins that he was investigating a burglary and that Williams was mentioned. Atkins continued to deny any involvement. Detective Hunter questioned Atkins regarding the time he arrived in Bloomington and what he had been doing. Detective Hunter again asked to see Atkins' laptops, and Atkins continued to ask why Detective Hunter needed to go through his personal items. Detective Hunter told Atkins that laptops were stolen in the robbery and repeatedly tried to convince Atkins to let Detective Hunter see the laptops, but Atkins refused. Atkins said, "Wait, so you saying, so I don't have my rights so y'all can go through my personal stuff." State's Ex. A. Detective Hunter responded, "Does it look like I'm going through your stuff right now." Id.
[8] After more refusals from Atkins, Detective Hunter walked away to talk to Williams, and Detective Baker talked to Atkins. Atkins' discussion with Detective Baker was not recorded; however, Detective Hunter's body camera was recording, and during Detective Hunter's conversation with Williams, Atkins could be heard having a loud argument with Detective Baker. Williams informed Detective Hunter that Atkins arrived in Bloomington at approximately 4:00 p.m.
[9] After approximately ten minutes, Detective Hunter returned to Atkins. Detective Baker can be heard saying to Atkins, Id. Detective Baker then told Detective Hunter that Atkins claimed to have purchased the laptops shortly before the officers arrived.
[10] Detective Hunter asked Atkins, "So do you mind if I bring it over here and you can pull it out and I can just have a look at that?" Id. Atkins answered, "Yeah, I'll pull it out." Id. Atkins said that he purchased the backpack containing the three laptops for $450.00. Detective Hunter then examined the laptops, one of which had a username of Mark Lambert. At this point, the interaction between Atkins and the officers lasted almost thirty minutes. Approximately fifteen or twenty minutes later, Atkins was handcuffed and transported to the police station.
[11] On October 18, 2017, the State charged Atkins with: (1) burglary, a Level 1 felony; (2) robbery, a Level 2 felony; and (3) armed robbery, a Level 3 felony. On August 15, 2018, Atkins filed a motion to suppress. Atkins argued that: (1) the search of his backpack violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and his rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution ; and (2) the interrogation violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. In particular, Atkins argued that his rights under Pirtle v. State , 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975), and Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were violated. Atkins requested the suppression of: (1) the evidence seized during the search of his backpack; and (2) his statements to the officers.
[12] At the suppression hearing, Atkins testified that he did not feel free to leave during the incident in the parking lot; he was not given Miranda warnings; he was not informed that he had the right to refuse to consent to a search of his property; and he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. After the hearing and briefing by the parties, the trial court granted Atkins' motion to suppress on December 28, 2018. The trial court found:
[T]he facts and analysis for the custody determination for Miranda are substantively the same as those made for Pirtle . In conclusion, many of the factors considered by courts on the issues of Pirtle and Miranda are met in this case: Atkins' freedom of movement was curtailed when he was directed to sit on the curb after having begun to walk off; his having a continual police presence while sitting on the curb; not being accommodated when he indicated he needed to urinate; multiple requests to search were not accompanied by a Pirtle advisement after an advisement of a state constitutional right was really not an advisement of a right at all; and the officer's words and actions implied the possibility of arrest or detention or at the very least that Atkins was not free to go about his business. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he "was under arrest or not free to resist the entreaties of the police." Sellmer v. State , 842 N.E.2d at 363.
Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 65.
[13] In January 2019, the Honorable Teresa D. Harper, who granted Atkins' motion to suppress, retired; the new trial court judge recused from this case. Another trial court judge, the Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff, was assigned this case. On January 28, 2019, the State filed a motion to correct error. Judge Diekhoff granted the State's motion to correct error and reversed Judge Harper's order granting Atkins' motion to suppress.
[14] In determining whether Atkins was in custody and entitled to Pirtle and Miranda warnings, Judge Diekhoff considered factors identified by our Supreme Court in Meredith v. State , 906 N.E.2d 867, 873-74 (Ind. 2009). The trial court concluded:
Atkins' interaction with the police clearly implicates only two of the factors enunciated by the court in Meredith : the police suggested Atkins should cooperate and that he was not free to go about his business. The other factors are either not present at all, or were not sufficiently shown by the defense. The defense correctly notes and, indeed, their argument repeatedly presses upon the well-established notion that the custody inquiry is holistic and based on a "totality of circumstances," rather than on a mechanical tallying of certain essential elements. However, courts regularly employ just such a tally of factors, not in blind reliance on blackletter requisites, but as an indispensable guide to objective and fair application of the law to specific circumstances. In this case, some of these factors are clearly, undeniably met, but too many are not or not certainly enough. As the court in Meredith was concerned to...
To continue reading
Request your trial