Carlisle v. State

Decision Date11 December 1974
Docket NumberNo. 3--574A90,3--574A90
Citation319 N.E.2d 651,162 Ind.App. 396
PartiesBobby James CARLISLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Robert S. Bechert, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HOFFMAN, C.J., and GARRARD and STATON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On October 26, 1972, defendant-appellant Bobby James Carlisle was charged by affidavit with possession of a narcotic drug, to-wit: diacetyl morphine, in violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. See: IC 1971, 35--24--1--2, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3520 (Burns 1956). Following trial to the court, Carlisle was found guilty as charged, ordered committed to the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of not less than two nor more than ten years and ordered to satisfy costs. Thereafter, his motion to correct errors was overruled and this appeal was perfected.

An examination of the evidence most favorable to the State discloses that at approximately 11:00 P.M. on the evening of October 19, 1972, Officers David York and William Ned Crasper of the Police Department of the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, detained an automobile which appellant was driving. The officers identified themselves and informed Carlisle that they 'had a federal warrant for his arrest.' Appellant was subsequently requested to remove himself from the automobile and to place his hands upon it. Officer York thereupon attempted to search him. However, at such time Carlisle 'reached in his coat pocket and pulled out a kleenex' which contained 'a two by three inch manila envelope.' Before Officer York could seize his hand, appellant threw the envelope to the rear of the automobile. The officer then walked to the rear of the vehicle, picked up the envelope and conducted a field test upon the substance which the envelope contained. The test indicated the presence of an opiate. Carlisle was thereupon placed under arrest on a preliminary charge of violation of the Indiana Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. Officer York delivered both the kleenex and envelope to the Vice Office property room where both articles were tagged for identification and placed in property box. The property box and room were both locked. On the following morning, Captain Ernest Walter removed the envelope in question from the property box and delivered it to Sergeant Herbert F. Davis, a police department laboratory technician. Sergeant Davis analyzed the substance in the envelope and determined that it contained diacetyl morphine or heroin. Following the analysis, Sergeant Davis returned the envelope to Captain Walter who, in turn, placed it in the Vice Office safe where is remained until Captain Walter brought it to the courtroom at the time of appellant's trial.

The first issue to be considered is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibit No. 2 which comprised the envelope and its contents.

Appellnt contends this his arrest was illegal for the reason that Officers York and Crasper did not have a warrant in their possession. It is asserted that the subsequent search was illegal and that the envelope and its contents should therefore have been excluded.

The envelope containing heroin was not obtained in a search incident to an arrest or otherwise. When appellant removed the envelope from his pocket and threw it over the automobile onto the ground, he abandoned it, thus making the evidence subject to lawful seizure by police. State v. Smithers (1971), 256 Ind. 512, 269 N.E.2d 874.

However, if the abandonment was precipitated by an illegal arrest or detention, this illegality would taint the abandonment, making the involuntarily abandoned property inadmissible. Bowles v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 27, 267 N.E.2d 56; Hardin v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 56, 257 N.E.2d 671.

Carlisle did not abandon the envelope until Police Officers York and Crasper had stopped him and had requested that he exit from his automobile and subject himself to a 'pat down' search. Therefore only if the stop and 'pat down' search were lawful was the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Harmon v. City of Pocatello
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • January 7, 2020
    ...to see the warrant, Officers Bloxham and Vail would have been under no obligation to show it to her. See, e.g., Carlisle v. State , 162 Ind.App. 396, 319 N.E.2d 651, 653 (1974) (finding the police were under no obligation to show warrant when defendant "did not request that he be permitted ......
  • Gipson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1984
    ...256 Ind. 512, 515, 269 N.E.2d 874, 876; Kendrick v. State, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 555, 559, 325 N.E.2d 464, 467; Carlisle v. State, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 396, 399, 319 N.E.2d 651, 652. Only if the abandonment had been precipitated by an illegal detention would the property have been rendered ina......
  • Rinard v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1976
    ...N.E.2d 579. Accordingly, the State did not need to call as a witness the superior who also had a key to the drop box. Carlisle v. State, (1974) Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 651. Nor did the ambiguity arising out of mention of the 'locked security box' and the 'locked safe' prevent admission of the ......
  • Marshall v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 11, 1974
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT