Trigg v. State, 02A03-9909-CR-370.
Docket Nº | No. 02A03-9909-CR-370. |
Citation | 725 N.E.2d 446 |
Case Date | March 14, 2000 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
725 N.E.2d 446
Larry F. TRIGG, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 02A03-9909-CR-370.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
March 14, 2000.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Sarah E. Scherrer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
STATON, Judge.
Larry F. Trigg appeals his conviction for possession of paraphernalia, a Class D felony.1 Trigg raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as:
I. Whether the trial court erred by denying Trigg's motion to suppress evidence.
II. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Trigg's conviction.
We affirm.
The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that on July 13, 1998, Detective Stone of the Allen County Sheriff's Department and his partner observed a vehicle in which the occupants were not wearing their seatbelts and initiated a traffic stop. Detective Stone approached the passenger side of the vehicle, where Trigg was sitting. Trigg appeared nervous and "fidgeting down in his seat as if he may be attempting to hide something...." Record, 207. Detective Stone feared that Trigg was hiding a weapon and asked him to step out of the vehicle. As Trigg exited the vehicle, Detective Stone saw a glass tube with burnt residue on the end, which he recognized as a pipe used to smoke crack cocaine, lying on the seat of the car where Trigg had been sitting. After discovering the crack pipe, Detective Stone conducted a further search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, and found another crack pipe stuffed inside the torn seat in which Trigg had been sitting. Both pipes had cocaine residue on them.
I.
Motion to Suppress
Trigg filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the crack pipes found in the car, which the trial court denied. Trigg contends this was error. Specifically, Trigg argues that police may not initiate a traffic stop to determine if the occupants are wearing seatbelts and, thus, evidence obtained as a result of such a stop must be suppressed. Trigg is incorrect. IND.CODE § 9-19-10-3 allows police to initiate a traffic stop based on noncompliance with seatbelt requirements. Baldwin v. Reagan, 715 N.E.2d 332, 340 (Ind.1999).
IC X-XX-XX-X provides: "[a] vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of the vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter." In Baldwin, our supreme court interpreted IC X-XX-XX-X to allow police to initiate a traffic stop based upon reasonable suspicion that the occupants in a vehicle are not wearing seatbelts. Baldwin, 715 N.E.2d at 337. In the instant case, Officer Stone clearly observed that neither Trigg nor the driver were wearing seatbelts before he initiated the traffic stop. Accordingly, the traffic stop was valid.
Trigg's argument with respect to the motion to suppress is limited to the validity of the initial stop. He does not independently address the validity of the subsequent searches and any argument on the issue is, therefore, waived. Nevertheless, we wish to clarify that IC X-XX-XX-X does not prohibit police from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lockett v. State, 02S03-0004-CR-00232.
...U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind.1999); see also Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (declaring that when the defendant exited the car at the officer's request during a traffic stop, the officer prope......
-
Wright v. State, 10A01-0106-CR-221.
...Lehman never testified that he believed that Wright was armed or that he believed that his safety was in danger. Cf. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind. Ct.App.2000) (upholding Terry search where officer testified that defendant's "actions and behavior as he approached the car caused ......
-
Berkhardt v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1702-CR-369.
...App. 2016) (heroin residue on paraphernalia and defendant's flight immediately after officers discovered paraphernalia); Trigg v. State , 725 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (cocaine residue on crack pipe); McConnell v. State , 540 N.E.2d 100, 103-04 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (presence of m......
-
State v. Dodson, 49A02-0002-CR-100.
...he may conduct a limited search of the automobile's interior for weapons without first obtaining a search warrant. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); State v. Joe, 693 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. denied. See also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 ......
-
Lockett v. State, 02S03-0004-CR-00232.
...U.S. 128, 136-37, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind.1999); see also Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (declaring that when the defendant exited the car at the officer's request during a traffic stop, the officer prope......
-
Wright v. State, 10A01-0106-CR-221.
...Lehman never testified that he believed that Wright was armed or that he believed that his safety was in danger. Cf. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind. Ct.App.2000) (upholding Terry search where officer testified that defendant's "actions and behavior as he approached the car caused ......
-
Berkhardt v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1702-CR-369.
...App. 2016) (heroin residue on paraphernalia and defendant's flight immediately after officers discovered paraphernalia); Trigg v. State , 725 N.E.2d 446, 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (cocaine residue on crack pipe); McConnell v. State , 540 N.E.2d 100, 103-04 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (presence of m......
-
State v. Dodson, 49A02-0002-CR-100.
...he may conduct a limited search of the automobile's interior for weapons without first obtaining a search warrant. Trigg v. State, 725 N.E.2d 446, 449 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); State v. Joe, 693 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. denied. See also Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 ......