Thayer v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2363 |
| Citation | 144 N.E.3d 843 |
| Parties | Roger THAYER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Paula M. Sauer, Danville, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Roger Thayer was charged with Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine after being found to be in possession of 13.52 grams of methamphetamine. Prior to trial, Thayer unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence discovered during what he claims was an unjustifiably prolonged traffic stop. Thayer unsuccessfully renewed his evidentiary challenge at trial before stipulating to the relevant facts to prove that he possessed the 13.52 grams of methamphetamine. Relying on the stipulation, the trial court found Thayer guilty of the possession charge. On appeal, Thayer contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. We affirm.
[2] Shortly before midnight on February 25, 2019, Pittsboro Police Officer Nicholas Webber initiated a traffic stop after observing a truck driving on westbound I-74 with no working taillights or license plate illumination. Thayer was the driver and sole occupant of the truck. While speaking to Thayer, Officer Webber noticed that Thayer Tr. p. 9. Thayer was "acting very nervous and kept moving." Tr. p. 12. Officer Webber described Thayer's actions as "erratic." Tr. p. 33.
[3] Officer Webber asked Thayer for his driver's license and the vehicle's registration. Thayer did not have his driver's license or any other form of identification on him. Thayer orally identified himself and indicated that he was driving a friend's truck. Thayer provided Officer Webber with some form of registration or title paperwork for the truck, dropping it onto the interstate when he attempted to hand it to Officer Webber. After retrieving the paperwork from the lanes of travel, Officer Webber returned to his police-issued vehicle to confirm Thayer's identity and the registration status of the vehicle.
[4] After approximately five minutes, Officer Webber was able to obtain BMV confirmation that a person by the name of Roger Thayer had a valid driver's license. Due to safety concerns stemming from Thayer's extreme nervousness and erratic behavior, Officer Webber ran a criminal background check in an attempt to further confirm Thayer's identity. Officer Webber eventually received additional identifying information, but "the very first thing that pop[ped] up" was a red caution flag indicating that Thayer is someone with a "potential for violence." Tr. p. 17.
[5] Upon receiving the warning of Thayer's potential for violence, Officer Webber, who was working the nightshift alone in Pittsboro, requested backup assistance from Officer Kevin Hyde, a nightshift K9 officer in nearby Brownsburg. While waiting for Officer Hyde to arrive, Officer Webber ran the license plate information for the truck. Officer Webber also reviewed his incident history and began manually entering Thayer's identifying information into his traffic-stop report and ticket-issuance software. Normally, when an individual provides a driver's license or identification card during a traffic stop, Officer Webber scans the license or identification card and the computer in his police-issued vehicle populates the information in a ticket. However, because Thayer had no driver's license or identification card, Officer Webber had to manually enter all of the relevant information. Officer Webber was in the process of entering Thayer's information and issuing Thayer tickets for the inoperable taillights and license plate illumination when Officer Hyde arrived on the scene approximately five to ten minutes after receiving Officer Webber's request for backup.
[6] Officer Webber told Officer Hyde that he had observed Thayer make furtive movements toward the center of the vehicle and asked if Officer Hyde would walk his K9 around the vehicle. Officer Hyde agreed and, after Officer Webber removed Thayer from the truck, walked his K9 along the driver's side of the truck to conduct "a free air sniff" of the truck. Tr. p. 64. The K9 "gave an active alert" when he got to the driver's door/window. Tr. p. 64.
[7] After receiving the alert from his K9, Officer Hyde began a search of the vehicle, finding a glass methamphetamine pipe in the center console. At that point, Officer Webber placed Thayer under arrest and conducted a pat-down search of Thayer's person. During this search, Officer Webber found a baggie containing what was ultimately determined to be 13.52 grams of methamphetamine and a pipe in Thayer's "left breast jacket pocket." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 66. Thayer admitted that he had purchased the methamphetamine earlier that day and used "the found pipes to smoke it." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 66. In a further search of the truck, Officers Hyde and Webber found "three (3) scales with residue of an off-white substance, eight (8) syringes, numerous small baggies, straws with an off-white substance, and two (2) additional pipes containing an off-white burnt substance." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 66.
[8] On February 26, 2019, the State charged Thayer with Level 2 felony dealing methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a syringe, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. On May 13, 2019, Thayer filed a motion to suppress "all property seized by the arresting officers, all observations made by the arresting officers, and all statements made by [Thayer]." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 38. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Thayer's motion to suppress.
[9] On July 8, 2019, Thayer agreed to waive his right to a jury trial and, in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the dealing and paraphernalia charges, proceeding only with the Level 4 felony possession charge. At the beginning of the July 23, 2019 bench trial, Thayer renewed his challenge to the admission of the State's evidence. The trial court denied Thayer's renewed challenge, indicating that it would "stand on" its prior ruling. Tr. p. 89. The case was submitted to the trial court on stipulated evidence, and the trial court found Thayer guilty of Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine. On September 9, 2019, the trial court imposed a seven-year sentence, with four years executed, three years suspended, and one year of probation.
[10] Thayer contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence recovered during what he claims was an unjustifiably prolonged traffic stop. "In cases such as this one, where the defendant does not appeal the denial of a motion to suppress and the evidence is admitted over the defendant's objection at trial, we frame the issue as whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence at trial." Kyles v. State , 888 N.E.2d 809, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
The admission or exclusion of evidence is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. Farris v. State , 818 N.E.2d 63, 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). We will reverse a trial court's decision only for an abuse of discretion. Id. We will consider the conflicting evidence most favorable to the trial court's ruling and any uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Taylor v. State , 891 N.E.2d 155, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or it misinterprets the law. Id.
Collins v. State , 966 N.E.2d 96, 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). "Moreover, the trial court's ruling will be upheld if it is sustainable on any legal theory supported by the record, even if the trial court did not use that theory." Rush v. State , 881 N.E.2d 46, 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Gonser v. State , 843 N.E.2d 947, 950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) ).
[11] In arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, Thayer claims that the challenged evidence was recovered in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.1 "The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is to protect the legitimate expectations of privacy that citizens possess in their persons, their homes, and their belongings." Taylor v. State , 842 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind. 2006).
[12] "Notwithstanding the textual similarity of Article 1, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution to that of the federal Fourth Amendment, Section 11 is interpreted separately and independently from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." State v. Washington , 898 N.E.2d 1200, 1205–06 (Ind. 2008) (citing Mitchell v. State , 745 N.E.2d 775, 786 (Ind. 2001) ).
The Indiana Constitution may protect searches that the federal Constitution does not. State v. Moore , 796 N.E.2d 764, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Section 11 should be applied to protect people from unreasonable search and seizure. Brown v. State , 653 N.E.2d 77, 79 (In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tway v. State
...the officer's questions nor the dog sniff unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop. [18] More recently, in Thayer v. State , 144 N.E.3d 843, 847-48 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), we noted that the officer was still in the process of inputting the information into the ticket-issuing software whe......
-
J.M. v. State
...legitimate expectations of privacy that citizens possess in their persons, their homes, and their belongings.’ " Thayer v. State, 144 N.E.3d 843, 847 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind. 2006) ). These Fourth Amendment protections have been made applicabl......