D.Y. v. State, 49A02–1405–JV–298.
Citation | 28 N.E.3d 249 |
Decision Date | 11 March 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 49A02–1405–JV–298.,49A02–1405–JV–298. |
Parties | D.Y., Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
28 N.E.3d 249
D.Y., Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
No. 49A02–1405–JV–298.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
March 11, 2015.
Patricia Caress McMath, Michelle C. Langdon, Certified Legal Intern, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
PYLE, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[28 N.E.3d 252
possession of a firearm1 and carrying a handgun without a license.2 D.Y. was a potential suspect in a burglary, and a police officer told him that he was going to transport him to police headquarters for the burglary investigation. Prior to putting D.Y. into the police vehicle, the officer patted him down and discovered a firearm in D.Y.'s jacket. Subsequently, the State filed a petition alleging that D.Y. was a delinquent child for committing dangerous possession of a firearm and carrying a handgun without a license, both of which would be Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. D.Y. filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing that it was the result of an illegal search. The juvenile court denied the motion and adjudicated D.Y. a delinquent child.
[3] We reverse and remand with instructions.
Issue
[4] Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of a firearm found in D.Y.'s pocket during a pat down.
Facts3
[5] On February 17, 2014, Officer Sydney McDaniel (“Officer McDaniel”) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) was dispatched to the scene of a disturbance near 12th Street and Concord Street in Indianapolis. When he arrived, he found two males confronting a juvenile, A.I., about a burglary that they believed he had committed the previous month (“First Burglary”). Another male, Brian Smith (“Smith”), was also at the scene and was confronting A.I. about a separate burglary of his house that had occurred the prior weekend (“Second Burglary”). Officer McDaniel questioned the three alleged victims and, based on the information they gave him, detained A.I. and transported him to the police department's roll call for questioning. Officer McDaniel then followed Smith to his house to make a report of the Second Burglary.
[6] At Smith's house, Smith told Officer McDaniel that he and his wife had gone on a short vacation the previous weekend. When they returned, they found that someone had kicked in their back door and ripped the plastic that had been over the door. They also discovered that Smith's big screen television and Xbox were missing, although a broken Xbox in another room was still there. Smith told Officer McDaniel that he suspected that A.I., D.Y., and/or one other individual had been involved in the burglary because they had frequently played video
[28 N.E.3d 253
games at his house and knew which Xbox was broken.4
[8] Later that day, Officer McDaniel received a dispatch that Smith's wife had called to say that D.Y. was on the way to Smith's house to talk to Smith about his suspicions. Officer McDaniel called Detective Howard with the information, and Detective Howard told Officer McDaniel to “detain” D.Y. and bring him into roll call so that he could give a statement. (Tr. 24 ).
[9] When Officer McDaniel arrived at Smith's house, Smith and D.Y. were sitting on the couch talking. Officer McDaniel explained to D.Y. “why it [was] that [he] was there and that [he] would be transporting [D.Y.] to [IMPD's] district roll call for some burglary investigation that he was a possible suspect in.” (Tr. 38 ). Officer McDaniel then “told [D.Y.] that [he] would have to search him to put him in [the] police vehicle so that he could be transported.” (Tr. 38 ). Thereafter, Officer McDaniel conducted a pat down search of D.Y. and found a gun in his jacket pocket.5 Because Officer McDaniel was aware that D.Y. was under the age of eighteen, he secured the weapon, placed D.Y. in handcuffs, and transported him to the police headquarters.
[10] The next day, on February 18, 2014, the State filed a petition alleging that sixteen-year-old D.Y. was a delinquent child for committing one count of dangerous possession of a firearm and one count of carrying a handgun without a license, both of which would have been Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. Subsequently, D.Y. moved to suppress the evidence of the firearm that Officer McDaniel had found as a result of his pat down.6
[11] On March 13, 2014, the juvenile court held a denial and suppression hearing concerning the State's petition and D.Y.'s motion to suppress. During the hearing, D.Y. argued that Officer McDaniel's pat down had violated his constitutional rights under the United States and Indiana constitutions and that, as a result, the juvenile court should suppress the firearm discovered during the search. The State argued that the pat down did not violate D.Y.'s constitutional rights because Officer McDaniel had probable cause or reasonable suspicion that D.Y. had committed a burglary, as well as reasonable concerns for his safety. D.Y. disputed each of these arguments. Ultimately, the juvenile court denied D.Y.'s motion to suppress and entered a true finding on both of
[28 N.E.3d 254
D.Y.'s charges, thereby adjudicating him a delinquent child. On April 3, 2014, the court held a dispositional hearing and placed D.Y. on probation to last until July 31, 2014, for the dangerous possession of a firearm finding. The juvenile court dismissed the finding of carrying a handgun without a license. D.Y. now appeals.
Decision
[13] Preliminarily, we note that the juvenile court here held a hearing on D.Y.'s motion to suppress in conjunction with his denial hearing and ruled on the matter as a question of admissibility. We review a ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668, 674 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), trans. denied. We will find that a juvenile court has abused its discretion only when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Holbert v. State, 996 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. denied. In making this determination, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we must consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. McEwen
-
Richardson v. State
...as an arrest if it becomes so intrusive that it 'interrupts the freedom of the accused and restricts his liberty of movement.'" D.Y., 28 N.E.3d at 255 (quoting Reinhart, 930 N.E.2d at 45). However, "there is no 'bright line' for determining when an investigatory detention moves beyond merel......
-
Moore v. State
...the incident, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave a police officer's questioning. D.Y. v. State, 28 N.E.3d 249, 255 (Ind.Ct.App.2015). However, an officer may, without a warrant or probable cause, briefly detain an individual for investigatory purposes if the of......
-
Davis v. State, 45A03-1502-CR-64
...situation fell outside the boundaries of a Terry stop and amounted to an arrest as his liberty was restrained. See, e.g., D.Y. v. State, 28 N.E.3d 249, 255 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). [20] Because the officers did not have a warrant for Davis' arrest, the pat-down search was impermissible unless th......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...5-5 Suppressing Criminal Evidence 5-84 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Commonwealth v. Warren , 58 N.E. 3d 333 (Mass. 2016). D.Y. v. State , 28 N.E. 3d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261 (2011) People v. Braggs , 810 N.E. 2d 472 (Ill. 2004). People v. Leonard , 157......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...Seizures, Stops and Frisks Form 5-5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Commonwealth v. Warren , 58 N.E. 3d 333 (Mass. 2016). D.Y. v. State , 28 N.E. 3d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261 (2011) People v. Braggs , 810 N.E. 2d 472 (Ill. 2004). People v. Leonard , 157 P.......