J.B. v. State

Decision Date23 April 2015
Docket NumberNo. 49A02–1409–JV–688.,49A02–1409–JV–688.
Citation30 N.E.3d 51
PartiesJ.B., Appellant–Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Petitioner.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

30 N.E.3d 51

J.B., Appellant–Respondent
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Petitioner.

No. 49A02–1409–JV–688.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 23, 2015.


30 N.E.3d 53

Kimmerly A. Klee, Greenwood, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge.

Statement of the Case

1] J.B. appeals from the juvenile court's determination that he committed an act that constituted dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor.1 We affirm.

Issue

[2] J.B. raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained from J.B.'s encounter with a police officer.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the evening of July 12, 2014, Officer John Wallace of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was on patrol in his marked car when he saw J.B. and three other individuals walking along the sidewalk. J.B., who was seventeen years old at the time, saw Wallace's police car and threw a black object into a yard as he continued walking. Officer Wallace was 125 feet from the group, and he noted that the object was “in an L shape” and was approximately six inches long. Tr. p. 16. Officer Wallace has extensive training and experience with firearms, and he believed that the object J.B. discarded was a handgun. Id. at 14.

[4] Officer Wallace drove up to J.B. and his companions, got out of the car, and instructed them to sit on the sidewalk. Officer Wallace also requested assistance. When additional officers arrived, Officer Wallace walked to the yard into which he had seen J.B. discard the object. Officer Wallace found a nine millimeter handgun. There was nothing else in the yard that matched the size and color of the object that Officer Wallace saw J.B. discard.

[5] On July 14, 2014, the juvenile court authorized the State to file a petition alleging

[30 N.E.3d 54

J.B. to be a delinquent child. On August 12, 2014, the court held an evidentiary hearing.2 During the hearing, J.B. moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his encounter with Officer Wallace. The court denied J.B.'s motion, determining that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain J.B. At the end of the hearing, the court determined that J.B. was a delinquent child and scheduled a dispositional hearing.

6] After the September 2, 2014 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court awarded J.B. to the guardianship of the Indiana Department Correction “until the age of 21, unless sooner released by the Department of Correction.” Appellant's App. p. 11. The court recommended that J.B. be held at the Department of Correction “for a period of 6 months.” Id. at 12. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[7] J.B. argues that Officer Wallace detained him in violation of his constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure, as set forth in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. J.B. argues the juvenile court erred in admitting the evidence obtained from Officer Wallace's encounter with J.B.

[8] The admission and exclusion of evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the admission of evidence only for abuse of discretion. Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 871 (Ind.2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling, but we also consider any uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant.

Patterson v. State, 958 N.E.2d 478, 482 (Ind.Ct.App.2011).

Fourth Amendment

[9] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[10] The protections granted by the Fourth Amendment have been extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Sanders v. State, 989 N.E.2d 332, 335...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • J.G. v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 31 Enero 2018
    ...protections granted by the Fourth Amendment have been extended to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." J.B. v. State , 30 N.E.3d 51, 54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). "The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the legitimate expectations of privacy that citizens possess ......
  • Mullen v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Mayo 2016
    ...such facts, would cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur.J.B. v. State, 30 N.E.3d 51, 55 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted). [17] Before applying the reasonable suspicion requirement to the facts of this case,......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 Enero 2016
    ...degree of intrusion, his intrusion was minimal as he merely took a moment to ask Moore questions in a public place. See J.B. v. State, 30 N.E.3d 51, 56 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (requiring a person to sit on the sidewalk for a “short time,” without restraints, until other police officers arrived wa......
  • McNeal v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Noviembre 2016
    ...such facts, would cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur.J.B. v. State, 30 N.E.3d 51, 55 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted).[21] Here, as Officer Helton was in the midst of conducting a welfare check on Kemo, ......
  • 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