Moultry v. State, No. 49A02-0304-CR-320.
| Docket Nº | No. 49A02-0304-CR-320. |
| Citation | 808 N.E.2d 168 |
| Case Date | May 17, 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
808 N.E.2d 168
Christopher MOULTRY, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 49A02-0304-CR-320.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
May 17, 2004.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Matthew D. Fisher, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION
MAY, Judge.
Christopher Moultry was charged with Count I, dealing in cocaine, a Class A felony;1 Count II, possession of cocaine, a Class C felony;2 Count III, possession of cocaine and a firearm, a Class C felony;3 and Count IV, carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor.4 He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and handguns found in his car. Moultry asserts the evidence supporting the charges was obtained pursuant to an investigatory stop conducted without the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment.
We affirm.
On July 9, 2002, Officer Shaughnessy of the Indianapolis Police Department ("IPD") arrested Kendre Harris on outstanding warrants. While being interrogated, Harris told Officer Shaughnessy he had worked with men who were selling drugs around 9th and Delaware Streets in Indianapolis.
Harris told Shaughnessy that one of the men named "Chris" was dealing drugs out of his white Cadillac, which had silver rims. Harris also informed Shaughnessy the men used two-way radios and employed "runners" (Tr. at 54) to go to an apartment to obtain drugs and deliver them.
Two days after Harris' arrest, Shaughnessy saw a white Cadillac with silver rims fitting the description Harris had given him with the license plate number "97R1934." Shaughnessy ran the license plate number and found the car was registered to Moultry. The officer also discovered Moultry had drug-related prior offenses.
The following day, July 12, 2002, Officer Brian Swingle5 of the IPD received a dispatch relaying an anonymous report of drug dealing by the occupants of a white Cadillac with silver rims with license plate number "97R1934." According to the caller, the car was traveling up and down 9th Street near Delaware Street about every fifteen minutes. Officer Swingle found the white Cadillac, pulled behind it, and radioed to dispatch he had found the car.
Officer Shaughnessy heard Officer Swingle's radio call and told Officer Swingle he had enough information to stop the occupants of the Cadillac. Officer Swingle activated his emergency lights and pulled the vehicle over at a nearby gas station. In the Cadillac, Officer Swingle saw three men, one of whom was Moultry, the driver. Officer Swingle asked Moultry to exit the vehicle. After Officer Shaughnessy and other officers arrived, the other two men were removed from the vehicle.
Moultry allowed the officers to search the ashtray of his car where officers noticed marijuana seeds and residue. The officers also noticed in plain view on the driver's seat a piece of plastic associated with narcotics. The officers searched Moultry and found $800 and crack cocaine in his front pocket. The officers continued to search the vehicle and discovered cocaine and handguns.
The State charged Moultry with three felonies and one misdemeanor. On January 8, 2003, Moultry filed a motion to suppress any evidence discovered after the initial traffic stop. The trial court denied his motion. Moultry subsequently requested that denial of the motion be certified for interlocutory appeal and the trial court granted that request. We accepted jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
At issue in this case is an investigatory stop. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the Government, and its safeguards extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). However, a police officer may briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes without a warrant or probable cause if,
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Ind. v. RENZULLI, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194.
...intrusion is reasonably warranted and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’ ” Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 170-71 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). “Reasonable suspicion is a ‘some......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 20A04–1209–CR–561.
...to believe criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Francis v. State, 764 N.E.2d 641, 644 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 171 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). The State bears the burden of proving that an investigatory stop was not violative of the constitutional protectio......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind., No. 49A02-0909-JV-841.
...and its safeguards extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 170 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). However, a police officer may briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes without a warrant or probable cause ......
-
Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
...inferences [62 N.E.3d 1258therefrom give the officer “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’ ” Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 171 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). To determine whether there was reasonable suspicion, we must determine whether the totality of the circumstances show ......
-
State of Ind. v. RENZULLI, No. 32A04-1003-CR-194.
...intrusion is reasonably warranted and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’ ” Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 170-71 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). “Reasonable suspicion is a ‘some......
-
Robinson v. State, No. 20A04–1209–CR–561.
...to believe criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur. Francis v. State, 764 N.E.2d 641, 644 (Ind.Ct.App.2002).Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 171 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). The State bears the burden of proving that an investigatory stop was not violative of the constitutional protectio......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind., No. 49A02-0909-JV-841.
...and its safeguards extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 170 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). However, a police officer may briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes without a warrant or probable cause ......
-
Jacobs v. State, No. 49A02–1601–CR–19.
...inferences [62 N.E.3d 1258therefrom give the officer “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’ ” Moultry v. State, 808 N.E.2d 168, 171 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). To determine whether there was reasonable suspicion, we must determine whether the totality of the circumstances show ......