Hostetler v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-797 |
| Citation | 184 N.E.3d 1240 |
| Parties | David HOSTETLER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Matthew D. Anglemeyer, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Nicole D. Wiggins, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] David Hostetler ("Hostetler") appeals, following a jury trial, his convictions for Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug,1 Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine,2 Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance,3 and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe.4 Hostetler argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence found during a vehicle inventory search. Concluding that Hostetler has waived appellate review of his appellate challenge to the admission of evidence found during the inventory search by repeatedly stating that he had no objection to the admission of the evidence when it was introduced at trial, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Whether Hostetler has waived appellate review of his challenge to the admission of evidence found during a vehicle inventory search.
[3] On August 12, 2020, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Beech Grove Police Department ("BGPD") Officer Timothy White ("Officer White") was driving behind a blue Chrysler vehicle on 17th Avenue in Beech Grove. The vehicle had a temporary license plate and was driven by Hostetler. Officer White ran the license plate number and discovered that it was registered to a yellow Honda. The officer activated his lights and conducted a traffic stop. Officer White walked up to Hostetler's car and advised Hostetler of the reason for the stop. Hostetler immediately told the officer that he did not have a license, and he gave the officer a state identification card. Officer White ran the identification card through the BMV, which showed that Hostetler had a suspended license with a prior suspension within ten years.
[4] Around that time, Officer Elizabeth Keisler ("Officer Keisler") arrived on the scene, and Officer White told her that he was going to remove Hostetler from his car and summons him. Additionally, Officer White arranged to have the vehicle towed because there was no valid driver, the plate did not match the vehicle, and the vehicle was not registered and was blocking traffic. Officer White then prepared to conduct an inventory of the vehicle pursuant to the BGPD policy that requires that "[a]ll vehicles being towed [to] be inventoried." (Ex. Vol. at 10). Officer Keisler conducted an initial patdown of Hostetler for weapons and found a baggie containing buprenorphine or suboxone
sublingual strips for which Hostetler had a prescription. Officer White placed Hostetler in handcuffs and placed him "[i]n front of [the officer's] patrol vehicle." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 166).
[5] Officer White started his inventory at the front driver's seat area. On the floorboard, the officer saw a "medium sized plastic bag containing several smaller plastic bags inside of it." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 167).5 Officer White continued the inventory and saw a Pringles can on top of a "clothes hamper" and "some miscellaneous items" on the front passenger seat. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 167, 168). Officer White "noticed that the ... silver rim [of the Pringles can] wasn't fully connected to the cardboard side" of the can. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 167). From the officer's prior training and experience, he knew that Pringles cans could have "false bottoms" and could contain either valuables and/or narcotics." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20, 168). Officer White removed the bottom of the Pringles can and saw "what [he] believed to be narcotics." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). Specifically, inside the Pringles can, Officer White found a plastic baggie containing "peach pills," a plastic bag containing a "crystal like substance[,]" and another plastic baggie containing "a greyish powdery substance." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168-69). Based on his training and experience, Officer White believed these substances to be narcotics.
[6] Officer White told Officer Keisler to read Hostetler his Miranda rights. Officer Keisler searched Hostetler's person and found $653 in cash in Hostetler's pocket. Officer White found an "uncapped, used hypodermic needle" between the seat and back cushions of the front passenger seat. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 170). While searching the trunk, Officer White found a bag of unused hypodermic needles, a tote full of clothes, and two or three additional Pringle cans. Also in the trunk, Officer White found a "Whizzinator[,]" which is a rubber penis with an attached bag that is used to pass drug tests. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 177). Hostetler denied that the items in the front of the car were his, but he admitted that the items, including the tote and Pringles cans in the trunk belonged to him. Hostetler told Officer White that the car belonged to a friend.
[7] The BGPD sent the suspected drug substances found in Hostetler's car to the Marion County Forensic Services Agency ("Crime Lab") for testing. This testing revealed the peach pills to be buprenorphine
pills weighing 3.55 grams, the crystal-like substance to be methamphetamine weighing 5.48 grams, and the greyish powder substance to be fentanyl weighing 5.04 grams.
[8] The State charged Hostetler with Level 3 felony dealing in a narcotic drug (fentanyl), Level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug (fentanyl), Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (buprenorphine pills), and Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. On a separately-filed charging information, the State alleged that Hostetler had a prior conviction for dealing in a controlled substance and sought to enhance all these charges, except the unlawful possession of a syringe charge, to the next level felony.
[9] Hostetler filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the inventory search of the car was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court held a hearing on Hostetler's motion on March 31, 2021.
[10] During the suppression hearing, Officer White testified that BGPD officers always conducted an inventory search at the scene before a car was towed to the impound lot. The State also introduced the BGPD policy on towing vehicles. The BGPD tow policy provided, in part, that BGPD officers were "authorized" to "remove and/or cause to be removed any vehicle found upon a street" when that vehicle was left "unattended[,]" "display[ed] illegal license plates[,]" "fail[ed] to display the lawfully required license plates[,]" or was "left unattended due to the removal of an ... arrested operator." (Ex. Vol. at 9). Additionally, the BGPD policy provided as follows:
H. All vehicles being towed will be inventoried. The purpose of the inventory is to protect the owner's property, protect the officer and the towing company from dangerous objects, and to protect the Beech Grove Police Department from false allegations of theft. The passenger compartment, trunk, as well as storage areas will be inventoried. All locked containers will be opened when the officer is unable to determine the contents of the container when viewed from the outside. All items located in the vehicle will be listed on the impound form. Officers may remove any contraband or evidence of a crime from an impounded vehicle if the property removed was taken during an inventory of the vehicle. All property of a valuable nature should be removed from an impounded vehicle and turned in to the property room, to be returned to the owner at a later time. Any property removed or left in the vehicle shall be noted on the impound report form.
(Ex. Vol. at 10). The State also introduced a copy of the towing impound form, which revealed that the inventory of Hostetler's car had included "[m]iscellaneous clothing, three phones, chargers, [and] food and drinks." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 27). At the end of the hearing, the trial court took the motion under advisement.
[11] Prior to commencing a two-day bifurcated jury trial on April 5-6, 2021, the court denied Hostetler's motion to suppress. At trial, Officer White testified regarding the inventory search of Hostetler's vehicle and what had been found inside the vehicle during that search. Specifically, Officer White testified that there was a "medium sized plastic bag containing several smaller plastic bags inside of it" on the driver's side floorboard and that baggies such as the ones found were "commonly used to package narcotics." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 167). Officer White then testified that he found a false-bottomed Pringles can on the front passenger seat and that he removed the bottom of the Pringles can and saw "what [he] believed to be narcotics." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168).
[12] At that point, Hostetler stated, "I'm going to interrupt here to object to the admission of any evidence discovered during the inventory search and make that a standing objection." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). The State responded that, "based on the hearing that[ ] [had] been held, ... this was a proper inventory." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168). The trial court overruled the objection and noted that Hostetler had a "standing objection." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 168).
[13] Thereafter, Officer White testified further about the methamphetamine, fentanyl, buprenorphine pills, and the hypodermic needles that were found in Hostetler's car. Hostetler did not object. When the State introduced State's Exhibits 3-9, photographs of the items found in Hostetler's car, Hostetler stated, "We have no objection, Your Honor." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 179). Thereafter, the State moved to admit State's Exhibits 10-15, which included the methamphetamine, fentanyl, buprenorphine pills, hypodermic needles, and buprenorphine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cullum v. State
...that counsel has no objection to the evidence waives an appellate challenge to the admissibility of evidence. Hostetler v. State , 184 N.E.3d 1240, 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. An " ‘appellant cannot on the one hand state at trial that he has no objection to the admission of ev......
- Wellings v. State