Thomas v. State

• Decision Date: 07 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. 27S02-1703-CR-170,27S02-1703-CR-170
• Citation: 81 N.E.3d 621
• Parties: Will THOMAS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

81 N.E.3d 621

Will THOMAS, Appellant (Defendant below),

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 27S02-1703-CR-170

Supreme Court of Indiana.

September 7, 2017

Attorney for Appellant : William T. Myers, Grant County Public Defender, Marion, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee : Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Larry D. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 27A02-1602-CR-374

David, Justice.

Will Thomas was found guilty of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and now appeals his conviction under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the reasons discussed herein, we find Thomas's arrest was lawful and the evidence recovered was admissible. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

This case arose from an arrest for dealing in narcotic drugs. On April 7, 2014, the Joint Effort Against Narcotics ("JEAN") Team Drug Task Force, which included officers from the City of Marion Police Department and the Grant County Sheriff's Office, received a tip from a credible confidential informant that two men from Chicago were travelling to Grant County to sell drugs. The informant told JEAN officers that the two men were driving a white minivan with a temporary Illinois license plate, and could be found at the Comfort Suites in Marion, Indiana.

Upon receiving this information, Detective Mark Stefanatos ("Detective Stefanatos") began surveillance of a Dodge Caravan that fit the confidential informant's description. While there, he observed two men, later identified as Will Thomas and Byron Christmas, enter the vehicle and drive away.

Detective Stefanatos followed the van and observed it illegally change lanes without properly signaling. Detective Stefanatos then called for a uniformed police officer, Joseph Martin ("Officer Martin"), to initiate a traffic stop. He also called for a canine unit on the scene, which arrived within a minute or two.

Officer Martin initiated the stop and approached the vehicle with Detective Stefanatos. Officer Martin walked to the driver's side of the vehicle and spoke with Christmas while Detective Stefanatos spoke with Thomas, who was sitting in the front passenger seat. The officers tried to verify each man's identity and their reason for travelling through Marion, Indiana. Both Thomas and Christmas told officers that they were visiting family, but neither man could identify where in Indiana their respective family members lived. Furthermore, the driver, Christmas, was unable to present officers with any form of identification and claimed he left his driver's license in Chicago.

Simultaneous to the traffic stop, officers ran a certified narcotics canine around the vehicle with the occupants still inside. The officers first brought the canine to the vehicle's rear bumper and had it sniff along the driver's side. When the canine reached the driver's door, it alerted officers to the presence of narcotics. Officers removed Thomas and Christmas from the vehicle and conducted a pat-down search for officer safety. No drugs or weapons were found in the course of the pat-down.

Christmas then gave officers permission to search the vehicle. The canine was brought into the vehicle's interior, but it no longer detected the presence of narcotics. No narcotics or contraband were found in a subsequent search of the vehicle's interior. Officers did not bring the narcotics detection canine around the suspects because the canine was also trained as an apprehension dog. Bringing the dog around the suspects ran the risk of causing them injury if either of the suspects turned out to possess contraband.

Christmas and Thomas were each asked whether they would consent to a strip search at the police station. Christmas agreed and was transported to the county jail where no drugs were found on his person. Officers did, however, find Christmas had $750 in cash. Thomas, on the other hand, declined the search. Given Thomas's refusal to consent, officers applied for a search warrant. In the meantime, they transported Thomas to the Marion Police Station where he would await the results of the search warrant request. Officers said they transported Thomas because they preferred to conduct the search somewhere other than a public roadway. They also expressed concern about the destruction of evidence if Thomas were not transported to the police station.

Upon arrival at the station, Thomas was placed in an interview room, which was equipped with video monitoring equipment. Officers left Thomas alone in the room and continued to observe him remotely. Moments later, Thomas was seen removing something from his jacket pocket and placing it in his mouth. Officers re-entered the room to retrieve what Thomas had placed in his mouth. When Thomas refused to comply, officers forced his mouth open and retrieved a small plastic baggie containing 8.5 grams of a gray, crumbly, rock-like substance. The substance later tested positive for heroin.

Thomas was charged with Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class B misdemeanor battery. Prior to trial, Thomas moved to suppress evidence recovered at the police station, alleging officers lacked probable cause to detain him. The trial court denied Thomas's motion. After a two-day jury trial, Thomas was found guilty of dealing in a narcotic drug, but not guilty of battery. Thomas appealed.

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed Thomas's conviction, finding that police violated Thomas's Fourth Amendment rights when they detained and transported him to the police station to await a search warrant. Thomas v. State , 65 N.E.3d 1096, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), transfer granted, opinion vacated, 2017 WL 1160999 (Ind. Mar. 23, 2017). The Court of Appeals further found that the trial court erred in not excluding evidence obtained during that detention. Id.

The State then sought transfer. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), we granted transfer, thereby vacating the Court of Appeals' opinion.

Standard of Review

Thomas did not seek interlocutory review of the trial court's denial of the suppression motion; instead, the matter proceeded to trial. Thus, we consider this appeal a request to review the trial court's decision to admit evidence. Carpenter v. State , 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014) (citing Guilmette v. State , 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014) ). The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Guilmette , 14 N.E.3d at 40. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and ordinarily reversed when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State , 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997). However, when a challenge to such a ruling is predicated on the constitutionality of the search or seizure of evidence, it raises a question of law that we review de novo . Kelly v. State , 997 N.E.2d 1045, 1050 (Ind. 2013) (internal citations omitted).

Discussion

Thomas does not dispute the legality of most activities carried out by law enforcement on the day of his arrest. As a starting point, he agrees officers initiated a lawful traffic stop for failure to signal while changing lanes. Thomas also concedes the legality of the canine unit's use, the search of the vehicle's interior, and the brief detention on the side of the road, which included a pat-down search.

Instead, Thomas argues that officers lacked probable cause to transport him to the police station because, although a positive canine alert undoubtedly gives officers probable cause to search a vehicle, it does not create probable cause to search any of the vehicle's occupants or to detain them. Thomas argues that when he was taken to the police station and placed in an interrogation room, he was being held in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; therefore, any evidence recovered should be deemed inadmissible.

The State disagrees, arguing that the canine's positive alert, when coupled with the subsequent "ruling out" of the vehicle, provided officers with the probable cause they needed to detain both occupants. Thus, according to the State, when Thomas was observed placing the contraband in his mouth, he was lawfully detained and any evidence recovered in that instance was properly admitted.

As an initial matter, we note that Thomas's argument is partly misplaced. Whether probable cause to search the vehicle gave officers probable cause to search the occupants is irrelevant. Aside from a roadside pat-down that Thomas concedes was lawfully administered, Thomas was not searched. The contraband that officers recovered, which Thomas now claims was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, was observed by officers while Thomas was being held in the interrogation room. Thus, the pertinent question is more accurately framed as whether probable cause to detain Thomas and transport him to the police station arose at any point during the traffic stop. However, before we make that determination, we must first dispense with whether, at the time Thomas placed the baggie in his mouth, he was in custody for purposes of our analysis.

I. Thomas was in custody when he was transported to the police station.

An arrest arises when the taking or seizure of a person occurs in a way that deprives, interrupts, or restricts the person of her liberty or freedom of movement. Sears v. State , 668 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind. 1996) ; Armstrong v. State , 429 N.E.2d 647, 651 (Ind. 1982). Determining whether a person was in custody or deprived of her freedom requires an inquiry into whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement to a degree associated with a formal arrest. Luna v. State , 788 N.E.2d 832, 833 (Ind. 2003) (citing California v. Beheler , 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) ). The inquiry utilizes an objective test that asks whether a reasonable person under...