Hansbrough v. State, No. 29A04–1508–CR–1121.

Docket NºNo. 29A04–1508–CR–1121.
Citation49 N.E.3d 1112
Case DateJanuary 29, 2016
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

49 N.E.3d 1112

Jason HANSBROUGH, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 29A04–1508–CR–1121.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Jan. 29, 2016.


49 N.E.3d 1112

Lawrence M. Hansen, Hansen Law Firm, LLC, Noblesville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Eric P. Babbs, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

CRONE, Judge.

Case Summary

1] Jason Hansbrough appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a level 4 felony. During a valid traffic stop of Hansbrough's vehicle,

[49 N.E.3d 1113

police officers conducted a dog sniff around the vehicle. After the canine alerted to the presence of narcotics, officers searched the vehicle and found a firearm. Hansbrough unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search arguing that the dog sniff prolonged the traffic stop in violation of his constitutional rights. The evidence was subsequently admitted at trial over his continuing objection. The sole restated issue for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence obtained as a result of the search. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

2] On September 30, 2014, Fishers Police Officer Kevin Silbaugh was driving north on Interstate 69 when he observed a black SUV following less than one second of braking distance behind another vehicle.1 Officer Silbaugh activated his emergency lights and conducted a traffic stop of the black SUV. Hansbrough was driving the black SUV and was the vehicle's sole occupant.

[3] Officer Silbaugh approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked Hansbrough for his license, registration, and insurance information. Officer Silbaugh also asked Hansbrough where he had come from and where he was headed. Hansbrough informed Officer Silbaugh that he was traveling from Indianapolis to Muncie.

[4] While he was speaking to Hansbrough, Officer Silbaugh observed what he believed to be marijuana “shake” in the area between the cup holder and the center console inside the vehicle. Tr. at 12.2 Based upon this observation, Officer Silbaugh suspected the presence of drugs in the SUV. Accordingly, as he walked back to his police vehicle with Hansbrough's documents, Officer Silbaugh immediately called for a canine unit to come to the scene. Officer Silbaugh then sat in his police vehicle and began typing out a warning ticket and running a records check of Hansbrough. Officer Silbaugh returned once to Hansbrough's vehicle to verify that he still lived at the address listed on his identification. Officer Silbaugh again returned to his police vehicle, and at that time a backup officer arrived at the scene as a matter of routine practice. Within fourteen minutes of the commencement of the traffic stop, the canine unit arrived at the scene. Officer Silbaugh was on the phone checking for outstanding warrants on Hansbrough and had not yet completed his paperwork for the traffic stop when the canine unit arrived.

[5] Sixteen minutes after the traffic stop began, Officer Gerald Fenimore of the Noblesville Police Department conducted a dog sniff around Hansbrough's vehicle by walking his narcotics-trained canine around the perimeter of the vehicle. The canine alerted to the presence of narcotics by sitting down outside the open window on the driver's side. Officer Silbaugh was still on the phone checking for outstanding warrants on Hansbrough, and when he learned that the canine had alerted to the presence of narcotics he “asked to call

[49 N.E.3d 1114

them back.” Id. at 15. Due to the canine alert, Officers Silbaugh and Fenimore proceeded to search Hansbrough's vehicle. Officer Fenimore noticed what he also believed to be “marijuana shake” in the front passenger area of the vehicle, but he did not try to collect it. Id. at 57. The search revealed a handgun underneath the driver's seat.

6] Officers handcuffed Hansbrough and placed him in one of the police vehicles. After being advised of his Miranda rights, Hansbrough admitted that the handgun was his and that he kept it for protection. Hansbrough also acknowledged that he had a prior conviction for class C felony battery resulting in bodily injury.

[7] The State charged Hansbrough with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a level 4 felony. Thereafter, Hansbrough filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the vehicle search claiming that the dog sniff impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop and therefore violated his constitutional rights. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. A bench trial was held on May 28, 2015. During trial, Hansbrough objected to the admission of any evidence obtained as a result of the search of his vehicle. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found Hansbrough guilty as charged. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 7, 2016
    ...we do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the trial court's factual determinations unless clearly erroneous. Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114–15 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (citing Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 869 (Ind.2009) ), trans. denied. “We view conflicting evidence most favora......
  • Weathers v. State, No. 49A04–1601–CR–3.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 17, 2016
    ...we do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the trial court's factual determinations unless clearly erroneous. Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114–15 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (citing Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 869 (Ind.2009) ), trans. denied. “We view conflicting evidence most favora......
  • Tway v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1710
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 2021
    ...of a search and seizure[,]’ " O'Keefe v. State , 139 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Hansbrough v. State , 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied ), which is to say we review such questions under a de novo standard. Marshall , 117 N.E.3d 1258 (citing Robinson......
  • Tway v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1710
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 2021
    ...constitutionality of a search and seizure[,]'" O'Keefe v. State, 139 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied), which is to say we review such questions under a de novo standard. Marshall, 117 N.E.3d 1258 (ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 7, 2016
    ...we do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the trial court's factual determinations unless clearly erroneous. Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114–15 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (citing Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 869 (Ind.2009) ), trans. denied. “We view conflicting evidence most favora......
  • Weathers v. State, No. 49A04–1601–CR–3.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 17, 2016
    ...we do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the trial court's factual determinations unless clearly erroneous. Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114–15 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (citing Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 869 (Ind.2009) ), trans. denied. “We view conflicting evidence most favora......
  • Tway v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1710
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 2021
    ...of a search and seizure[,]’ " O'Keefe v. State , 139 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Hansbrough v. State , 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied ), which is to say we review such questions under a de novo standard. Marshall , 117 N.E.3d 1258 (citing Robinson......
  • Tway v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1710
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 24, 2021
    ...constitutionality of a search and seizure[,]'" O'Keefe v. State, 139 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Hansbrough v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied), which is to say we review such questions under a de novo standard. Marshall, 117 N.E.3d 1258 (ci......
  • 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