Chambers v. State
| Decision Date | 22 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-8705-CR-468,49S00-8705-CR-468 |
| Citation | 526 N.E.2d 1176 |
| Parties | M.J. CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Richard D. Gilroy, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jay Rodia, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A bench trial resulted in a conviction of appellant of Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in a Narcotic Drug, a Class A felony, for which he received a sentence of thirty (30) years with twenty (20) years suspended and ten (10) years executed.
The facts are: In January of 1986, Indianapolis Detective Tommie Terrell personally met with a known and reliable informant who gave him information that three black males were headed to Chicago in a 1977 blue Ford; the officer was also given its license number. The informant stated that the purpose of the trip was to purchase heroin in Chicago. Late in the evening on the same day this information was received, Detective Terrell had a telephone conversation with a known reliable informant in Chicago, who stated he had seen this same vehicle arrive at a house in Chicago which was known to be a drug distribution house.
Armed with this information, several police officers in separate automobiles conducted a surveillance along Interstate 65 near Zionsville, Indiana. At approximately 2:00 a.m., one of the officers spotted a car matching the description of the vehicle they were seeking. This vehicle was followed by police until it drove into Indianapolis and exited the interstate on the ramp leading to 30th Street. At that time, the officers stopped the vehicle. Two officers then exited their cars with one officer clearly displaying his badge to the occupants. However, the vehicle suddenly sped forward, requiring the police officer to jump out of its path.
Other officers at the scene pursued the vehicle and observed objects being thrown from the vehicle, including a powdery substance and containers which appeared to be plastic bags. After an approximately three-block chase, the vehicle was stopped for the second time, and the suspects and the vehicle were searched.
On the passenger side of the front seat, the officers found a bag containing a brown powdery substance which was later determined to be heroin. Upon searching the individuals, they found two small packets of heroin on Willie B. Williams. Neither of the other two subjects had any contraband on his person. Upon retracing the path of the chase, officers recovered a plastic bag containing heroin which had been thrown from the vehicle. The amount of heroin recovered from the individuals and the vehicle exceeded nine and one-half grams.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence recovered in the searches of the vehicle and of Williams. He takes the position that there was not probable cause for the officers to stop and search the vehicle. However, in the case at bar, the initial information furnished by the known reliable informant was immediately checked and verified when it was learned that the described vehicle with three black male occupants did in fact arrive in Chicago at a known drug distribution house. The officers were informed by a reliable Chicago informant that the vehicle left the drug distribution house with the three black male occupants. This information was further borne out when the same vehicle with three black male occupants arrived in the Indianapolis area at a time consistent with the information furnished by the informants.
This situation closely parallels the one discussed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Draper v. United States (1959), 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. In discussing practical probabilities that Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickenson v. State, No. 12A04-0411-CR-605 (IN 10/13/2005)
...parties in furtherance of the criminal act. Id.; Wallace v. State, 722 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Chambers v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind. 1988)). Likewise, to determine whether the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime alleged, "`[t]he trier of fact......
-
Weida v. State
...of the parties in furtherance of the criminal act. Wallace v. State, 722 N.E.2d 910, 913 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (citing Chambers v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind.1988)). With regard to the intent element, we note that to determine whether the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the......
-
Kats v. State
...trial and the inferences therefrom which favor the jury's verdict are sufficient under our supreme court's decision in Chambers v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1176 to support the I, therefore, respectfully dissent. 1 While we do not rule on this point, we note that, in People v. Martin (......
-
M.T.V. v. State
...agreement, "it is not necessary to present direct evidence of a formal express agreement between conspirators." Chambers v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1176, 1178 (Ind.1988). Rather, "[s]uch intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence alone, including overt acts of the parties in pursuance of......