Taylor v. State, No. 679S149

Docket NºNo. 679S149
Citation406 N.E.2d 247, 273 Ind. 558
Case DateJune 27, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 247

406 N.E.2d 247
273 Ind. 558
Willie TAYLOR, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 679S149.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 27, 1980.

Page 248

John D. Breclaw & Associates by Robert E. Stochel, Griffith, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Joel Schiff, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

After a trial by jury, defendant-appellant Taylor was found guilty of two counts of Robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twelve (12) years imprisonment on Count I and twelve (12) years imprisonment on Count II, said terms to be served concurrently. His Motion to Correct Errors was denied after hearing by the court on March 12, 1979. He appeals from this denial, alleging that the trial court erred in admitting a statement made by the appellant into evidence.

[273 Ind. 559] On April 10, 1978, at approximately 7:30 p. m., a Clark Service Station in East Chicago, Indiana, was robbed by three men. At approximately 3:30 a. m., April 11, the appellant and two other men were stopped by Highland police. Officer Schmidt had observed a vehicle making two U-turns crossing all four lanes of traffic and passing by a 7-11 Store. Because of the lateness of the hour, the absence of other traffic and the fact that only the 7-11 store on the corner was open all night, the officer radioed other units in the area, thinking that something suspicious was going on. The car pulled off on a side street and stopped. The lights were turned off. The car then moved to another location. At that time, Officer Schmidt observed that a tail light was out. Officer Darnell advised that he was close to the area. Officer Schmidt activated his red lights and pulled the car over. Another

Page 249

squad car pulled up behind him. The driver of the stopped vehicle jumped out. Schmidt drew his weapon and told the driver to put his hands on the roof of the car and to remain still. Officer Darnell came up along the other side of the squad car and Schmidt asked the other occupants of the car to get out of the vehicle. All three were asked to go to the back of the car and place their hands on the trunk, which they did. Officer Darnell approached the car and observed a gun on the back floor board on the driver's side of the car. The men were handcuffed and the officers looked in the car with flashlights, and saw the butt of another weapon sticking out from under the front seat. Upon examination, the weapon was found to be a loaded .357 Magnum Black Hawk. Coins; quarters, dimes, nickles and pennies were also observed strewn about the car. Two holsters and a stocking cap with a slit halfway up, such as could be used for eye holes if worn over the face, were found. The passengers and driver were taken to the police station and all were advised of their Miranda rights. Willie Taylor, Jr., the appellant here, was advised of his rights and signed a waiver form after having the rights read to him and reading the waiver. This form was executed at 4:45 a. m. Appellant was placed in custody and was not questioned. No statements were taken at this time. Mencer Bray was the driver of the car and was later charged with having a gun without a permit. A message regarding the men being held was sent from the Highland police at 5:50 a. m. It was received by the East Chicago police at 8:00 a. m. The East Chicago police were aware of the robbery in their city and had information from the victims as to the [273 Ind. 560] general description of the people who had robbed them, the weapon used and what money was taken. This information was similar to the information teletyped from the Highland police.

A photographic display was conducted at 9:00 a. m., on April 11, in East Chicago, showing photographs to the victims of the robbery, which display included photographs of the men being held in Highland. The appellant was transported to East Chicago at 1:00 p. m., on April 11. East Chicago police informed him that he was being held for investigation of a robbery. Again, appellant was advised of his Miranda rights, and at approximately 2:00 p. m., on April 11, he gave a statement. A line-up was conducted at 10:00 a. m. the next day, April 12. Appellant was not identified at the line-up and was released immediately after the line-up. The total detention time of the appellant was from 3:30 a. m., on April 11, to approximately noon the next day. Charges were filed against the appellant for two counts of robbery on April 14, 1978.

Appellant's claim of alleged error specifically relates to his statement taken approximately ten (10) hours after his arrest. He claims that the driver of the vehicle, the other passenger and he were taken to the Highland Police Station for investigation and detained without probable cause to believe that they had committed any crime. We disagree.

At the time these men were taken to the police station and held, it appears clear that there was probable cause to believe they had committed a crime. Appellant makes much of the fact that Officer Schmidt was not aware of the specific robbery of the Clark Station in East Chicago at the time he detained the defendant. Taylor also emphasizes that he was told that the East Chicago Police were holding him for investigation of armed robbery.

We note that a police officer may describe a situation as being one of investigation or suspicion, or he may state that he did or did not believe that he had probable cause. However, this subjective evaluation is not determinative of the issue. The test for probable cause was set out in Brinegar v. United States, (1949) 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310-11, 93 L.Ed. 1879, 1890, quoting Carroll v. United States, (1924) 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543, as follows:

[273 Ind. 561] "Probable cause exists where 'the facts and circumstances within their (the officers') knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information (are),

Page 250

sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that' an offense has been or is being committed (by the person to be arrested.)"

The initial stop of this car was lawful. The officer who stopped the vehicle had observed traffic violations committed in his presence and also had observed behavior that, in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Sweeney v. State, No. 10S00-9603-CR-231
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 18 d5 Dezembro d5 1998
    ...706, 708 (Ind.1988) (stopping defendant's vehicle for taillight and licence plate light violations was a justified stop); Taylor v. State, 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind.1980) (initial stop of car for traffic violations was lawful). We also find that defendant impliedly consented to......
  • Roche v. Anderson, No. 3:98 CV 347 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 6 d2 Fevereiro d2 2001
    ...including Greider v. State, 270 Ind. 281, 385 N.E.2d 424 (1979), Spence v. State, 272 Ind. 515, 400 N.E.2d 109 (1980), Taylor v. State, 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247 (1980), Scott v. State, 409 N.E.2d 1184 (1980), Ballentine v. State, 480 N.E.2d 957 (1985), Dennie v. State, 524 N.E.2d 273 (1......
  • Averhart v. State, No. 1182S414
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 d1 Outubro d1 1984
    ...act in question. Fyock v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1089; Battle v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 39; Taylor v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247; Benton v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 34, 401 N.E.2d 697. Averhart's claim seems to be that it was improper to admit this evidence ove......
  • Fyock v. State, No. 682S243
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 d2 Junho d2 1982
    ...in concluding a drug transaction or sale of some sort of contraband was taking place. In the case of Taylor v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 247, we held that suspicious operation of a vehicle was sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest and search of the subject's car. In that case we &......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Sweeney v. State, No. 10S00-9603-CR-231
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 18 d5 Dezembro d5 1998
    ...706, 708 (Ind.1988) (stopping defendant's vehicle for taillight and licence plate light violations was a justified stop); Taylor v. State, 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247, 250 (Ind.1980) (initial stop of car for traffic violations was lawful). We also find that defendant impliedly consented to......
  • Roche v. Anderson, No. 3:98 CV 347 AS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • 6 d2 Fevereiro d2 2001
    ...including Greider v. State, 270 Ind. 281, 385 N.E.2d 424 (1979), Spence v. State, 272 Ind. 515, 400 N.E.2d 109 (1980), Taylor v. State, 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247 (1980), Scott v. State, 409 N.E.2d 1184 (1980), Ballentine v. State, 480 N.E.2d 957 (1985), Dennie v. State, 524 N.E.2d 273 (1......
  • Averhart v. State, No. 1182S414
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 d1 Outubro d1 1984
    ...act in question. Fyock v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1089; Battle v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 39; Taylor v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247; Benton v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 34, 401 N.E.2d 697. Averhart's claim seems to be that it was improper to admit this evidence ove......
  • Fyock v. State, No. 682S243
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 d2 Junho d2 1982
    ...in concluding a drug transaction or sale of some sort of contraband was taking place. In the case of Taylor v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 247, we held that suspicious operation of a vehicle was sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest and search of the subject's car. In that case we &......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT