D.F. v. State, No. 49A02–1408–JV–575.

• Docket Nº: No. 49A02–1408–JV–575.
• Citation: 34 N.E.3d 686
• Case Date: May 13, 2015
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

34 N.E.3d 686

D.F., Appellant–Respondent
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Petitioner.

No. 49A02–1408–JV–575.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

May 13, 2015.

34 N.E.3d 688

Elizabeth A. Houdek, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Monika Prekopa Talbot, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

Opinion

MAY, Judge.

1] D.F. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent. He asserts the court erred by admitting the handgun found inside his sweatshirt because the search of his sweatshirt violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Around 8:00 p.m. on May 6, 2014, a citizen approached a police officer and reported “a black male with a black hoodie that had a large black gun with a long magazine in the park on the bleachers.” (App. at 12.) The officer reported the information and it was released over dispatch. Officer Adam Mengerink responded to the dispatch.

[4] As Officer Mengerink approached in his vehicle, he saw D.F. on the bleachers taking off a black hoodie. D.F. sat down on the bleachers next to the hoodie. As Officer Mengerink walked toward the bleachers, D.F. began “[s]cooting away from the sweatshirt.” (Tr. at 7.) Officer Mengerink opened the hoodie and found a gun.

[5] The State filed a delinquency petition alleging D.F. committed an act that would, if committed by an adult, be Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm¹ and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.² D.F. objected to the admission of the handgun and Officer Mengerink's testimony about it. The court overruled the objections and adjudicated D.F. a delinquent.³

Discussion and Decision

[6] We review rulings regarding the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs “when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Johnson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 955, 957 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Id. Instead, we “consider conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.” Id.

[7] Where admissibility of evidence is challenged based on the constitutionality of the search that uncovered the evidence, we also consider any uncontested evidence favorable to the appellant. Id. “Although a trial court's determination of historical facts is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when reviewing the trial court's ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.” Lindsey v. State, 916 N.E.2d 230, 238 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (italics in original), trans. denied.

[34 N.E.3d 689

In other words, when a trial court has admitted evidence alleged to have been discovered as the result of an illegal search or seizure, we generally will assume the trial court accepted the evidence presented by the State and will not reweigh that evidence, but we owe no deference as to whether that evidence established the constitutionality of a search or seizure.

Johnson, 992 N.E.2d at 957.

1. Fourth Amendment

[8] The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable government searches and seizures, and its protection extends to brief investigatory stops that fall short of traditional arrest. C.H. v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1086, 1092 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), trans. denied. An officer may briefly detain someone to investigate, without a warrant or probable cause, if specific and articulable...