Tway v. State

Decision Date24 June 2021
Docket NumberCourt of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1710
Citation171 N.E.3d 1068 (Table)
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
Parties Maung TWAY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Attorneys for Appellant: Emily S. Hunter, Maxwell B. Wiley, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Samuel J. Dayton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In this interlocutory appeal, Muang Tway appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Tway was the subject of a traffic stop, followed by a canine officer "dog sniff" inspection of Tway's car. Officers from the Fishers Police Department recovered methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and marijuana in Tway's vehicle and wallet. Tway moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the evidence resulted from an illegal seizure, not justified by a particularized reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer that initiated the traffic stop. After a hearing, the trial court denied Tway's motion. Tway sought interlocutory appeal, which this Court accepted. Because the dog sniff occurred prior to the moment that the mission of the traffic stop was reasonably concluded, we affirm the trial court.

Issue

[2] Tway raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred by denying Tway's motion to suppress evidence.

Facts

[3] On May 9, 2019, Officer Andrew Arndt of the Fishers Police Department observed a PT Cruiser that Officer Arndt believed was not properly displaying its license plate. Officer Arndt followed the vehicle on I-69 and observed the vehicle make a sudden lane change. The PT Cruiser then appeared to follow the vehicle ahead of it too closely, and Officer Arndt initiated a traffic stop at approximately 12:03:45 p.m.1

[4] At approximately 12:06:24 p.m., Officer Arndt requested that the driver—Tway—exit his vehicle and sit in the passenger seat of Officer Arndt's police vehicle. Officer Arndt made this request in part for safety purposes, and in part to separate Tway from his passengers, thereby eliminating the possibility that a fabricated story might be concocted among them. Tway complied, and sat in the passenger seat of the police vehicle. At 12:08:15 p.m., while investigating Tway's license and vehicle registration via computer, Officer Arndt proceeded to ask Tway a series of questions regarding, among other things, Tway's reasons for travel, the identities of two other occupants in Tway's vehicle, and Tway's tattoos, one of which depicted a marijuana leaf. Tway answered all of Officer Arndt's questions.

[5] After inputting Tway's personal information, Officer Arndt proceeded to investigate Tway's vehicle ownership at approximately 12:16 p.m., by entering information from the car's title and registration into his police computer. One minute later, Officer Arndt informed Tway that Tway's license and registration "appear[ed]" to be valid, but that Officer Arndt was still checking. At 12:20:30 p.m., Officer Arndt contacted dispatch to determine whether Tway had any outstanding warrants in Allen County, where Tway was heading. Approximately thirty seconds later, Officer Arndt's partner arrived on the scene and began speaking with the two passengers in Tway's car.

[6] At 12 :22 p.m., Officer Arndt began explaining the nature of the warning being issued to Tway. Two minutes later, Officer Arndt printed the warning and removed it from the printer without giving it to Tway. With the warning in hand, Officer Arndt repeated a series of questions about whether there was anything illegal in Tway's car, asking specifically if Tway had any illegal drugs, weapons, or large amounts of currency. Tway denied that there was anything illegal in his car. Officer Arndt then informed Tway that a canine officer was going to inspect Tway's vehicle.

[7] At 12 :26:30 p.m., Tway asked whether all of his papers were in order, and Officer Ardnt confirmed that they were. At 12:27:18 p.m., Tway asked for the warning, and Officer Arndt handed the warning to Tway eight seconds later. At 12:28:15 p.m., Officer Arndt received a radio call indicating that Tway had no outstanding warrants in Allen County. At 12:28:29 p.m., Officer Arndt exited his vehicle with the intention of asking questions of Tway's passengers regarding their itinerary and ownership of the PT Cruiser. Tway remained in the police vehicle. The dog sniff began at 12:28:43 p.m., and the canine officer alerted. Officer Arndt subsequently searched Tway's vehicle and discovered methamphetamine, marijuana, and glass pipes used for smoking methamphetamine, in addition to marijuana in Tway's wallet.

[8] On May 14, 2019, the State charged Tway with possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony; possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. On June 5, 2020, Tway filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the drugs and paraphernalia were obtained as a result of an illegal seizure in contravention of both the federal and state constitutions.2 The trial court conducted a hearing on Tway's motion to suppress evidence on July 7, 2020.

[9] Officer Arndt testified that he noticed the following during the course of the traffic stop: (1) Tway had tattoos that included a marijuana leaf and others that Officer Ardnt believed were gang-related; (2) Tway left the door to the police vehicle open when he got into it; (3) Tway's driver's license was broken in half and taped back together; (4) Tway's license plate was partially obscured; (5) Tway's glove compartment was locked; (6) Tway appeared to be breathing rapidly and trembling when he was initially pulled over; (7) Tway's t-shirt featured a marijuana leaf; (8) Tway asked questions about the warning citation while Officer Arndt was processing it; (9) Tway's name was not on the vehicle registration; (10) Tway did not have a bill of sale for the PT Cruiser; and (11) Officer Arndt believed Tway could not recite the names of his passengers. Additionally, Officer Arndt observed inconsistencies in Tway's answers to Officer Arndt's questions.

[10] Officer Arndt further testified that, while Tway was being held in the police car, Officer Arndt was attempting to ascertain whether Tway had outstanding warrants and whether the PT Cruiser had been reported stolen. Officer Arndt determined that Tway had no outstanding warrants and did not discover anything indicating that the car had been stolen.3 Finally, Officer Arndt testified to his ongoing questions about whether Tway was the owner of the vehicle. Tr. Vol. II p. 26. Tway told Officer Arndt that he had just purchased the vehicle, but he did not have a bill of sale. Officer Arndt was unable to verify that Tway was the owner from either the registration or the car's title.

[11] The trial court denied Tway's motion to suppress on August 14, 2020, and found that: "In the case here, there were no articulable facts that the police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to proceed after the traffic stop thereafter with an investigatory detention." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 64. The trial court further found that:

Based upon the video in the case here, it appears that the officer concluded the traffic stop at 12:23 pm, and that the officer and Defendant had sporadic conversation for the next three minutes before than [sic] canine unit arrived. Another two minutes expired before the canine sniff began. The officer never told the Defendant that he was free to leave. Accordingly, the canine sniff prolonged the traffic stop for three to five minutes.

Id. at 65. The trial court concluded:

In the case here, the officer's conversation did extend the traffic stop by a few minutes. But relying on the Curry[4 ] case above, this Court rules that the officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop did not convert the traffic stop into something other than a lawful seizure, because the inquiries did not significantly extend the duration of the stop.

Id. at 66.

[12] On August 17, 2020, Tway moved to certify the trial court's order for interlocutory appeal, and the trial court granted the motion the same day. We accepted jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 5(B).

Analysis

[13] Tway argues his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution were violated during the traffic stop; and, therefore, the trial court erred by denying Tway's motion to suppress evidence discovered while Tway's person was seized. "When a trial court denies a motion to suppress evidence, we necessarily review that decision ‘deferentially, construing conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling.’ " Marshall v. State , 117 N.E.3d 1254, 1258 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Robinson v. State , 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind. 2014) ), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 113 (2019). We, however, consider any substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant. Id. We review the trial court's factual findings for clear error, and we decline invitations to reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We consider " ‘afresh any legal question of the constitutionality of a search and seizure[,] " O'Keefe v. State , 139 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Hansbrough v. State , 49 N.E.3d 1112, 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied ), which is to say we review such questions under a de novo standard. Marshall , 117 N.E.3d 1258 (citing Robinson , 5 N.E.3d at 365 ).

I. Federal Constitutional Challenge

[14] "The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and its safeguards extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." Ertel v. State , 928 N.E.2d 261, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Moultry v. State , 808 N.E.2d 168, 170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) ), trans. denied. "Evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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