Brown v. Eaton

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-1999
• Citation: 164 N.E.3d 153
• Parties: Emery BROWN, Appellant-Defendant, Cross-Appellee, v. Brent EATON, Hancock County Prosecutor, Appellee-Plaintiff, Cross-Appellant
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

164 N.E.3d 153

Emery BROWN, Appellant-Defendant, Cross-Appellee,

v.Brent EATON, Hancock County Prosecutor, Appellee-Plaintiff, Cross-Appellant

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-1999

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED February 10, 2021

Attorney for Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Bryan L. Cook, Carmel, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross Appellant: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Evan M. Comer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

May, Judge.

[1] Emery Brown appeals following a judgment ordering the forfeiture of $32,284.00 in cash seized by the Fortville Police Department ("FPD") during a traffic stop of Brown's vehicle.¹ Eaton, in his capacity as the Hancock County Prosecutor ("State"), cross-appeals. Brown raises two issues:

(1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Brown's pre- Miranda statements to the police; and

(2) whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court's forfeiture order.

On cross-appeal, the State raises a third issue:

(3) whether the trial court properly excluded evidence obtained from Brown's cell phone.

We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History²

[2] On May 11, 2017, Officer Derrick Archor of the FPD was on patrol in his police cruiser and noticed a silver Dodge passenger car with an illegible license plate. Officer Archor followed the silver Dodge and smelled what he believed was the odor of burnt marijuana the entire time he followed the vehicle. Officer Archor then activated his lights and siren to initiate a traffic stop. Before the Dodge pulled over, Officer Archor saw what he believed was a lit cigarette fly out of the driver's side window of the vehicle.

[3] Brown was the sole occupant of the silver Dodge. Officer Archor smelled a strong order of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle during the traffic stop. He also observed that Brown's eyes were bloodshot and glossy. Brown told Officer Archor that he was smoking a blunt before Officer Archor pulled him over and that he threw the marijuana cigarette outside the window when he saw the police lights. Four McCordsville police officers and Deputy Nick Ernestes³ of the Hancock Sheriff's Department also arrived at the scene of the traffic stop. Officer Archor asked Brown to exit his vehicle and conducted a pat down search. Officer Archor discovered a large amount of United States currency in Brown's left cargo pants pocket. The currency was tightly packed together with multiple rubber bands.

[4] Deputy Ernestes noticed the stack of currency and an "older" iPhone⁴ sitting on the hood of Officer Archor's police cruiser. (Tr. Vol. II at 64.) Deputy Ernestes asked Brown if the currency belonged to him, and Brown initially said the currency belonged to his girlfriend. Deputy Ernestes testified that Brown told him:

[Brown] was transporting the currency from an abandoned house that his mother owned in Muncie to a, to his girlfriend at a location that he kept bouncing around different scenarios of how he was going to meet her uh to deliver the currency to her so they could build houses for the homeless.

(Id. at 65.) Brown gave varying answers when Deputy Ernestes asked him how much money was in the stack of currency. During the traffic stop, Brown's iPhone received multiple incoming calls. Deputy Ernestes counted the currency and discovered it totaled over $30,000. Officers searched Brown's vehicle, but they did not find any contraband or other suspicious items in the vehicle.

[5] Brown failed a field sobriety test designed to detect impairment from marijuana, and Officer Archor placed Brown under arrest. While Officer Archor was driving Brown to the police station, Brown told Officer Archor that he had marijuana on his person. Officer Archor pulled the police cruiser over, and Brown removed approximately two grams of marijuana from between his buttocks. The State subsequently charged Brown with Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance,⁵ Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person,⁶ Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana,⁷ and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.⁸

[6] The Hancock County Circuit Court issued a search warrant on May 17, 2017, authorizing a search of the confiscated iPhone for "documentation of call logs, incoming and outgoing; text messages, incoming and outgoing; documentation regarding subscriber telephone number, pictures and cellular service provider[.]" (State's Ex. 3.) The State filed a civil complaint on May 19, 2017, seeking forfeiture of the money seized during Brown's traffic stop. On May 28, 2017, the FPD delivered the phone to the Fishers Police Department because the FPD did not have the software necessary to unlock the phone. After unsuccessfully trying to unlock the phone and extract data from it, the Fishers Police Department returned the phone, and the FPD sent the phone to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The FBI also was unsuccessful in performing a forensic analysis of the phone, and the FBI returned the phone to the FPD.

[7] Officer Archor applied to the Hancock County Superior Court for a second search warrant to extract data from the phone on August 11, 2017, and the Hancock County Superior Court issued the second search warrant. The FPD then sent the phone to Cellebrite, a private company used by law enforcement agencies to access digital data. The FPD delayed sending the phone to Cellebrite for nine days after the court issued the search warrant because the FPD had trouble securing a shipping label. Cellebrite successfully unlocked the phone and downloaded data from it. This data included pictures of marijuana, text message conversations, and a web search for "cuts in cocaine." (Tr. Vol. II at 111.) On September 8, 2017, Cellebrite returned Brown's cell phone and an external hard drive containing the data retrieved from it to the FPD.

[8] On April 5, 2018, in his criminal case, Brown pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining criminal counts. The court sentenced Brown to a term of 365 days in the Hancock County Jail, with 359 days suspended to probation.

[9] The court held a bifurcated bench trial in the civil forfeiture action on February 19 and March 19, 2019. At trial, Brown objected to admission of the body cam footage of the traffic stop because the footage contained statements Brown made while in custody and prior to being informed of his Miranda rights.⁹ Brown also objected on Miranda grounds to testimony from Deputy Ernestes and from Officer Archor about what Brown told Deputy Ernestes at the scene of the traffic stop. The trial court overruled Brown's objections.

[10] The State attempted to introduce into evidence a USB drive containing the data retrieved from Brown's cell phone by Cellebrite. Brown objected on the basis that the data was obtained during an unconstitutional search because the authorities did not timely execute the search warrant, and therefore, the data retrieved from his phone was inadmissible. The trial court sustained Brown's objection, stating:

I find [Brown's] argument to be pretty persuasive in that we've got rights that we have to protect, constitutional rights we need that you weigh that against the burden of applying for a new search warrant and I think the rights over weigh the burden of applying for that search warrant in the absence of additional guidance from uh, the Court of Appeals or Indiana Supreme Court or from the legislator [sic] in un, clarifying the statute.^{[10 ]}

(Id. at 108-109.) On May 21, 2019, the court entered judgment in favor of the State and ordered forfeiture of the $32,284.00 seized from Brown by the FPD. Brown filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court summarily denied on August 21, 2019.

Discussion and Decision

1. Brown's Statements to Police

[11] Forfeiture actions are civil in nature, and they are tried in accordance with the Indiana Trial Rules. Mesa v. State , 5 N.E.3d 488, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied , trans. denied. Decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence are generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review such decisions for an abuse of discretion. Brightpoint, Inc. v. Pedersen , 930 N.E.2d 34, 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs if the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Hicks v. State , 5 N.E.3d 424, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied , trans. denied.

[12] Brown argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his statements from the traffic stop into evidence because his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when officers questioned him regarding the large amount of cash found on his person without first advising him of his Miranda rights. Police are required to advise a suspect of his rights pursuant to Miranda before subjecting him to custodial interrogation. Id. at 428-29. However, officers do not need to advise a person who is not in custody of his rights prior to asking him questions. Id. at 429.

In determining whether a person was in custody or deprived of freedom such that Miranda warnings are required, our ultimate inquiry is whether there is a formal arrest or a restraint of the freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. We make this determination by examining whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would believe he is not free to leave. We examine all the circumstances surrounding an interrogation, and are concerned with objective circumstances, not upon the subjective views of the interrogating officers or the suspect. If the police, by means of physical force or show of authority in some way restrained the liberty of the suspect, we will conclude the suspect was seized and in custody.

I...