Johnson v. State, No. 2--874A191
| Docket Nº | No. 2--874A191 |
| Citation | 163 Ind.App. 684, 325 N.E.2d 859 |
| Case Date | April 24, 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 859
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
[163 Ind.App. 685]
Page 860
George T. Popcheff, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Russell W. Sims, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
HOFFMAN, Judge.
Defendant-appellant Joe L. Johnson has taken this appeal from his convictions of carrying a pistol without a license and possession of heroin.
An examination of the evidence most favorable to the State discloses that on the night of April 10, 1972, Officer Kenneth Goff of the Indianapolis Police Department and his partner, Officer Blackwell, had a known prostitute under surveillance. Officer Goff testified that he previously had conversations with the prostitute, one Jennifer Hilton, in [163 Ind.App. 686] which she had informed him 'that she would rob people.' Officer Goff observed the woman as she was 'attempting to wave cars down' and decided to place her under arrest for loitering. At such time, the officer observed an automobile owned by one William P. Jones come to a stop and watched as the prostitute entered the vehicle. Officer Goff subsequently detained the automobile and approached it on foot with caution. He testified that he was aware of the presence of three persons in the vehicle, but was, with the aid of a spotlight, only able to observe two. As the officer approached, his attention was drawn to appellant-Johnson, who at the time was seated on the passenger side in the front of the automobile. Officer Goff testified that he observed Johnson make 'arm movements and turning movements toward the seat' and concluded that Johnson was attempting to hide something under the seat. Officer Goff thereupon 'ordered everybody out of the car.' After three individuals exited from the automobile, the officers shined a flashlight into the interior of the vehicle and observed 'little squares of tinfoil' commonly known as 'bindles' and a sifter which had spilled out of a paper sack onto the floor on the passenger side in the area of the front seat. Officer Goff testified that upon noticing the tinfoil he stated, 'there's probably some dope right there.' He further stated that he believed the equipment which he discovered was used for '(w)rapping up narcotics', in particular, heroin, and that 'from where he (appellant) was sitting, his feet would have to had been right on top of it.' The officer then decided 'to check that car again * * * because it looked like an awful lot of movement up there, awful lot of pushing * * *.' Upon placing his hand 'down in the seat, the front seat, right where he'd been sitting, and over close to the door, * * * probably one-fourth of the distance over the seat from the door', Officer Goff could feel metal which he thought to be a gun, but was unable to 'get ahold of it.' Officer Blackwell thereafter succeeded in extricating 'a nickel plated .38 Special' from the seat. Simultaneously, 'a cigarette pack popped out too.' [163 Ind.App. 687] Officer Goff discovered that the cigarette package contained 'white powdery stuff, some kind of narcotic.' A field test later revealed a positive reaction for heroin.
Appellant contends that his motion to suppress evidence recovered from the automobile was erroneously denied for the reason that there was no probable cause for the initial stopping of the vehicle; that the warrantless search of Jones' automobile was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment; and that there was no evidence that he was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klopfenstein v. State, No. 2-681A193
...95 S.Ct. 686, 42 L.Ed.2d 686; Johnson v. State (1969) 252 Ind. 79, 246 N.E.2d 181, rehearing denied; Johnson v. State (3d Dist. 1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 325 N.E.2d 859. Compare Beck v. State (1st Dist. 1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The driver of a vehicle, however, is in violation of the s......
-
Moss v. State, No. 2--1273A266
...nearly identical to the facts extant in VonHauger v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 297, 258 N.E.2d 847 and Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 859, wherein the convictions for possession of illegal drugs were sustained. Even if the heroin itself had been excluded, since its admission is ......
-
Rihl v. State, No. 2-479A115
...of the warrant requirement is not necessary." Rogers v. State (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 348, 352; Johnson v. State (3d Dist.1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 688, 325 N.E.2d 859, 861. Compare Ludlow v. State, supra (warrantless search of a house struck down for lack of exigent circumstances). The exige......
-
Collett v. State, No. 3--774A125
...States Constitution. See also Ind.Const. art. 1, § 11. Elliott v. State (1974) Ind., 317 N.E.2d 173; Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 859. In reviewing the trial court's determination that the search was [167 Ind.App. 189] legal, this Court may not weigh the evidence nor judge ......
-
Klopfenstein v. State, No. 2-681A193
...95 S.Ct. 686, 42 L.Ed.2d 686; Johnson v. State (1969) 252 Ind. 79, 246 N.E.2d 181, rehearing denied; Johnson v. State (3d Dist. 1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 325 N.E.2d 859. Compare Beck v. State (1st Dist. 1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The driver of a vehicle, however, is in violation of the s......
-
Moss v. State, No. 2--1273A266
...nearly identical to the facts extant in VonHauger v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 297, 258 N.E.2d 847 and Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 859, wherein the convictions for possession of illegal drugs were sustained. Even if the heroin itself had been excluded, since its admission is ......
-
Rihl v. State, No. 2-479A115
...of the warrant requirement is not necessary." Rogers v. State (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 348, 352; Johnson v. State (3d Dist.1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 688, 325 N.E.2d 859, 861. Compare Ludlow v. State, supra (warrantless search of a house struck down for lack of exigent circumstances). The exige......
-
Collett v. State, No. 3--774A125
...States Constitution. See also Ind.Const. art. 1, § 11. Elliott v. State (1974) Ind., 317 N.E.2d 173; Johnson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 859. In reviewing the trial court's determination that the search was [167 Ind.App. 189] legal, this Court may not weigh the evidence nor judge ......