Jett v. State
| Decision Date | 14 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A05-9811-CR-549.,49A05-9811-CR-549. |
| Parties | Gary JETT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David R. Hennessy, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Randi E. Froug, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
Gary Jett appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana,1 a Class A misdemeanor. Jett raises three issues on appeal, one of which is dispositive: whether evidence obtained by police during a patdown search should have been suppressed as the result of an unlawful search.
We reverse.
On May 10, 1998, a police officer stopped Jett's vehicle for speeding and improper passing. After the officer stopped Jett, Jett immediately exited his vehicle. The officer then exited his patrol car and ordered Jett back into his vehicle. Jett complied with the officer's order and immediately got back inside his vehicle.
The officer approached Jett's vehicle and advised Jett why he had been stopped. The officer then asked Jett to exit the vehicle and performed a patdown search for officer safety. While performing the patdown search, the officer felt something hard that he thought could have been a weapon. When the officer looked inside Jett's pocket, he observed a cigarette package with a plastic bag sticking out of it. The officer removed the cigarette package from Jett's pocket and observed that the bag contained a leafy substance, which was later identified as marijuana. The officer arrested Jett for possession of marijuana. In a subsequent search of Jett's person and his vehicle incident to his arrest, police discovered two additional quantities of marijuana.
Jett contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the searches of his person and vehicle. Specifically, Jett argues that the officer's patdown search was not supported by an objectively reasonable fear for the officer's safety. Under the doctrine initiated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), an officer may not "frisk" an individual stopped for a traffic violation unless the officer holds a reasonable belief that the particular individual is armed and dangerous. State v. Pease, 531 N.E.2d 1207, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). The patdown search is reasonable if the facts are such that a reasonably prudent person in the same circumstances would be warranted in believing that the officer was in danger. Banks v. State, 681 N.E.2d 235, 237 (Ind. Ct.App.1997). In determining whether the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances, we consider the specific, reasonable inferences that the officer is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Id. at 237-38.
The State argues that the officer's patdown search of Jett was reasonable because Jett exited his vehicle immediately after the officer pulled him over, which was unusual and could be seen as a sign of hostility toward the officer. Although, in some cases, a patdown search may be justified when an individual exits his car before being approached by an officer, we conclude that the patdown search in the instant case was unreasonable.
The officer testified that, although exiting a vehicle before the officer approaches does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. State
...a drug dealer, all combine to provide sufficient justification for a pat-down for weapons.Dixon relies on our opinion in Jett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), in which we found a pat-down to be unconstitutional. Jett, however, is readily distinguished. In Jett, the defendant's veh......
-
Patterson v. State
...knew of Howard's previous arrests, but there was no evidence that prior arrests involved threats to officer safety); Jett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 69, 70–71 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (holding that pat-down was not authorized based solely on defendant's actions in exiting the vehicle immediately after b......
-
State v. Cunningham, 19S05–1409–CR–599.
...But we find no inherent coercion in the choice between remaining in the car, or being patted down as a condition of getting out.Nor does Jett v. State, on which Defendant relies, suggest otherwise. 716 N.E.2d 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). There, a driver got out of his car as soon as police pulled ......
-
Tumblin v. State, 49A02-9908-CR-549.
...suspicion that an individual represents a threat to an officer's safety does not authorize a patdown search. Jett v. State, 716 N.E.2d 69, 70-71 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). There must exist articulable facts to support an officer's reasonable belief that the particular individual is armed and dange......