Mendez-Vasquez v. State
| Docket Number | 23A-CR-226 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 2023 |
| Parties | Roger Mendez-Vasquez, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court The Honorable Darren Murphy Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D07-2202-F6-1187
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Christopher J. Evans Dyllan M. Kemp Dollard Evans Whalin LLP Noblesville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] In February of 2022, Fishers Police Officer Jospeh Ryder stopped a truck driven by Roger Mendez-Vasquez after witnessing a traffic infraction and determining that the truck's registration had expired. Officer Ryder discovered that Mendez-Vasquez had never had a valid driver's license in Indiana, arrested him, decided to impound his truck, and performed an inventory search. During the search, Officer Ryder discovered items that led to a charge of and conviction for Level 6 felony methamphetamine possession. Mendez-Vasquez contends that Officer Ryder's inventory search of his truck was unconstitutional and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in admitting the evidence recovered during it. Because we disagree, we affirm.
[¶2] On February 24, 2022, Officer Ryder was following a black truck driven by Mendez-Vasquez westbound on 96th Street in Hamilton County when he saw him activate his turn signal less than 200 feet away from the intersection with Wading Crane Avenue and make an "unexpected" right turn. Tr. Vol. II p. 8. Officer Ryder determined that Mendez-Vasquez's license plate had expired the month before and suspected that he had turned suddenly in an attempt to avoid him, so he pulled his police car onto nearby Springstone Road and waited to see if Mendez-Vasquez would return to the area. Shortly thereafter, Officer Ryder again spotted Mendez-Vasquez's truck westbound on 96th Street. Officer Ryder initiated a traffic stop and observed that Mendez-Vasquez was the vehicle's driver and sole occupant. Mendez-Vasquez produced some identification but not a valid driver's license, and Officer Ryder learned that a person with Mendez-Vasquez's name had an active warrant for his arrest from Marion County for operating a vehicle without ever having received a license. Once Officer Ryder confirmed Mendez-Vasquez's identity, he arrested him.
[¶3] After Mendez-Vasquez was taken into custody, Officer Ryder decided to have the truck impounded. At the time, the Fishers Police Department had a policy regarding inventory searches of impounded vehicles, pursuant to which officers are required to "log the property of value that is located within the vehicle and put it into the inventory log sheet." Tr. Vol. II p. 13. Before beginning his search, Officer Ryder asked Mendez-Vasquez to identify items of value that he wanted in the inventory, and Mendez-Vasquez replied that he had "a lot of tools[.]" Tr. Vol. II p. 13.
[¶4] During his inventory search, Officer Ryder found a purse in the passenger compartment, which was the same purse from which Mendez-Vasquez had retrieved his identification after he was stopped. When Officer Ryder opened the purse, he observed a glass smoking pipe with a substance inside that appeared to be a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine. Inside the compartment in the truck's armrest, Officer Ryder located a small, partially transparent plastic container, which contained a light-colored, crystal-like substance, which was later determined to be methamphetamine.
[¶5] On February 25, 2022, the State charged Mendez-Vasquez with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor unlawful possession of paraphernalia. Mendez-Vasquez's bench trial began on January 17, 2023.
Mendez-Vasquez did not object to the impoundment of his truck on Fourth Amendment grounds. Mendez-Vasquez, however, did object to the inventory search of the vehicle, claiming that the search of the purse in which the contraband was discovered was outside the scope of a permissible inventory search because Mendez-Vasquez had not identified the purse as an object of value prior to the initiation of the search. The trial court overruled Mendez-Vasquez's objection and permitted Officer Ryder to testify about the items he had located inside the purse and truck. The trial court ultimately found Mendez-Vasquez guilty of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and not guilty Class C misdemeanor unlawful possession of paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced Mendez-Vasquez to 654 days of incarceration.
[¶6] A constitutional challenge to the admission of the fruits of a warrantless search at a criminal trial implicates the Fourth Amendment's and Article 1, section 11's exclusionary rules, which means that the issue is properly left to the trial court's discretion over the admission of evidence. Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265, 1272 (Ind. 2002). We review such decisions for abuse of that discretion. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259 (Ind. 2013). Although the ultimate question of a search's constitutionality is a matter of law that courts review de novo, Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014), Fourth Amendment claims are, by their nature, fact-sensitive inquiries, and a trial court's determination of the facts is entitled to deference. Campos v. State, 885 N.E.2d 590, 596 (Ind. 2008). Reversal of a conviction is appropriate only if a defendant can show that the admission of evidence was contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances presented by his case or based on a misinterpretation of the law. Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001).
Mendez-Vasquez contends for the first time on appeal that the impoundment and inventory search of his truck violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to Article 1, section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. It is, however, well-settled that an issue must first be raised in the trial court by raising a timely objection, and the failure to do so results in waiver of the claim on appeal. Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018). When Mendez-Vasquez objected to the admission of the purse's contents at trial, Mendez-Vasquez claimed that they were "fruit of the poisonous tree" under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution but made no mention of Article 1, section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. Consequently, he has waived his Indiana constitutional claims for appellate review. See Durden, 99 N.E.3d at 652.
[¶7] As for Mendez-Vasquez's federal claims, the Fourth Amendment generally requires that police obtain a warrant to conduct a search of a defendant's person, house, papers, or effects unless one of the Amendment's "well-delineated" exceptions applies. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). As courts have long recognized, one of these exceptions occurs when police officers conduct an inventory search following the impoundment of a vehicle. Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371, 374 (Ind. 2016). The purpose behind the inventory-search exception is to "protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger." Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987). An inventory search's validity is determined based on a two-part test: first, because the need for an inventory arises from an impound, the State must establish that the impoundment is valid under either statute or as a matter of community caretaking; and second, courts must consider whether the scope of the inventory search was reasonable. Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 431 (Ind. 1993).
[¶8] Mendez-Vasquez claims for the first time on appeal that Officer Ryder's impoundment of his truck was unconstitutional; consequently, this claim is waived for appellate review. See Durden, 99 N.E.3d at 652. This leaves us only with Mendez-Vasquez's contention that the scope of the inventory search of his truck was unconstitutionally broad. Even when a vehicle is validly impounded, the inventory search itself "must be conducted pursuant to standard police procedures." Fair, 627 N.E.2d at 435. The purpose of this requirement is to make sure that the search is carried out in a manner that serves the objectives justifying inventory searches and that sufficiently limits the discretion of the officer so that the search cannot become a pretext for a general rummaging for incriminating evidence. Combs v. State, 168 N.E.3d 985, 995 (Ind. 2021). That said, even when an inventory search is conducted according to a policy, it is possible for the policy, as established by the record, to be so broad as to be the equivalent of having no policy at all. See, e.g., Fair, 627 N.E.2d at 436. This is what Mendez-Vasquez argues.
[¶9] For its part, the State argues that Officer Ryder's testimony provided sufficient detail regarding his department's policy to conclude that it sufficiently regulated officer discretion. Specifically, the State points to Officer Ryder's testimony that he was required to log items "of value," required to note whether the items were taken to a locker or left in the vehicle, and permitted to only search containers that might contain valuables. The only real point of contention is whether an inventory-search policy that requires officers to inventory items that are "of value" is sufficiently restrictive of officer discretion to pass constitutional muster. We conclude that it is.
[¶10] We agree with the State that limiting the inventory search to items "of value," i.e., items that...
To continue reading
Request your trial