State v. Eilers, 90A02-9708-CR-540
| Docket Nº | No. 90A02-9708-CR-540 |
| Citation | 697 N.E.2d 969 |
| Case Date | July 28, 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 969
v.
Christina M. EILERS, Appellee-Defendant.
Page 970
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, Geoff Davis, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellant-Plaintiff.
David A. Feeback, Edris, Brown, Johnson & Feeback, Bluffton, for Appellee-Defendant.
RILEY, Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant State of Indiana appeals the trial court's grant of Defendant-Appellee Christina M. Eilers's (Eilers) motion to suppress evidence.
We affirm.
The State presents two issues for our review; however, we find the following issue dispositive: Whether the trial court correctly determined that the evidence was the product of an illegal stop pursuant to Ind.Code 9-19-10-3.
On March 14, 1996, Officer James Womack of the Ossian Police Department was working on "seat belt patrol." When Officer Womack saw Eilers drive by him without her seat belt on he pulled her over. After verifying her driver's license and license plate, Officer Womack arrested Eilers for driving with a suspended license, possessing a false or fictitious registration, failing to wear a seat belt, and possessing stolen property.
Eilers was charged on March 15, 1996, of driving with a suspended license, driving with a false and fictitious registration, and driving without a seat belt. On August 8, 1996, Eilers filed a motion to suppress evidence which was denied pursuant to a hearing. Eilers then renewed her motion and another hearing was held at which Eilers offered the testimony of State Representative Jeffrey Espich over the State's objection. The trial court admitted Espich's testimony and then granted Eilers's motion to suppress. The State then brought this interlocutory appeal. Additional facts will be provided as needed.
Eilers contends, and the trial court agreed, that she was stopped illegally by Officer Womack and, therefore, the evidence obtained as a result of that stop should be suppressed. She claims the stop was illegal because it was in contravention of Ind.Code 9-19-10-3. The statute reads as follows: "A person may not be stopped, inspected, or detained solely to determine compliance with this chapter." Ind.Code 9-19-10-3. 1 The State questions whether the court erred in granting Eilers's motion to suppress evidence; the State's argument is two fold: 1) whether testimony of Espich was improperly admitted at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saylor v. State, 48S00-9712-PD-647.
...all sections of the act should be viewed together. Fuller v. State, 752 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001); see also State v. Eilers, 697 N.E.2d 969, 970 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ("[S]tatutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed together in order to produce a harmonious statutor......
-
Baldwin v. Reagan, 32S00-9812-CV-767.
...a police officer from simply "[w]atching for and then pulling over" a passing driver who was not wearing a seat belt. State v. Eilers, 697 N.E.2d 969, 971 (Ind.Ct. In 1998, the legislature amended this provision twice. First, P.L. 57-1998 added a new section 2.5 to the seat belt chapter, re......
-
Saylor v. State, 48S00-9712-PD-647
...all sections of the act should be viewed together. Fuller v. State, 752 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); see also State v. Eilers, 697 N.E.2d 969, 970 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) ("[S]tatutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed together in order to produce a harmonious sta......
-
Carter v. Carolina Tobacco Co., Inc., 49A04-0503-CV-151.
...courts may use English language dictionaries and consider the relationship of the term with other words and phrases. State v. Eilers, 697 N.E.2d 969, 971 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). However, because words that have one meaning in a particular context frequently have a different significance in anoth......