Webb v. State, No. 49A02-9812-CR-992.
| Docket Nº | No. 49A02-9812-CR-992. |
| Citation | 714 N.E.2d 787 |
| Case Date | August 17, 1999 |
714 N.E.2d 787
Clarence WEBB, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 49A02-9812-CR-992.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
August 17, 1999.
Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael R. Mclaughlin, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION
DARDEN, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Clarence Webb appeals his conviction of possession of cocaine, a class D felony, and possession of marijuana, a class A misdemeanor, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
We reverse.
FACTS
At about 12:15 a.m. on July 14, 1998, Officer Reddy of the Indianapolis Police Department was on patrol in the 10100 block of East Hastings Drive when he observed Webb standing next to a car parked in the parking area of an apartment complex. When Webb saw the officer, he "turned his body away" and appeared to be "putting something down his pants." (R. 44). Officer Reddy immediately exited his police car, "handcuffed [Webb] for officer safety reasons, thinking there might be a weapon," and "patted him down." Id. Officer Reddy "felt what was immediately apparent to [him] to be a narcotic in his groin area" and "recovered a baggy of a substance, which, through [his] training and experience as a police officer, [he] believed to be marijuana." Id. Further testimony revealed that Officer Webb recovered the marijuana from the crack between Webb's buttocks. Subsequently, in a search incident to arrest, another officer found a bag containing crack cocaine on Webb's person.
Webb was charged with possession of marijuana and of cocaine. Webb moved to suppress the evidence as being the product of an illegal search. In response to Webb's questioning, Officer Reddy testified that he had not seen Webb commit any criminal act. Officer Reddy agreed that "putting your hands down the front of your pants [wa]s . . . not a crime." Id. When asked the basis for the search, Reddy pointed to Webb's "furtive movements" of "turn[ing] his back to me in an attempt to hide something from me," and his knowledge that "gun crimes," "murders," "reports of shots fired," and "drug activity" occurred in that area. (R. 47). The trial court denied Webb's motion to suppress, and he was convicted after a bench trial.
DECISION
Webb claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer lacked grounds for a Terry stop. We agree.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees "`[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable search and seizures.'" Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). Generally, a search must be reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thompson, C-200388
...is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information."); Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 789 (Ind.App.1999) (state's argument that the defendant's presence in a high-crime area supported a reasonable inference that he was enga......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind., No. 49A02-0909-JV-841.
...reasonable suspicion must be comprised of more than an officer's general “ ‘hunches' ” or unparticularized suspicions. Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868). Here, the dispositive question is whether the tip Shockley provided to ......
-
Bell v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1606-CR-1390
...justification for Officer Gough's decision to search him for officer safety. (Appellant's Br. at 23.) In support, he cites Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), in which the State "imputed to [the officer] a new theory for the stop despite [the officer's] own testimony as......
-
Sanchez v. State, No. 49A02-0304-CR-362.
...general hunches or unparticularized suspicions." Jefferson v. State, 780 N.E.2d 398, 404 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (quoting Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)). At the moment of the stop, no articulable facts existed that would cause the Officers to believe that criminal activity......
-
State v. Thompson, C-200388
...is, whether the police were aware of or observed conduct which provided a particularized reason to request information."); Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 789 (Ind.App.1999) (state's argument that the defendant's presence in a high-crime area supported a reasonable inference that he was enga......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind., No. 49A02-0909-JV-841.
...reasonable suspicion must be comprised of more than an officer's general “ ‘hunches' ” or unparticularized suspicions. Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868). Here, the dispositive question is whether the tip Shockley provided to ......
-
Bell v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1606-CR-1390
...justification for Officer Gough's decision to search him for officer safety. (Appellant's Br. at 23.) In support, he cites Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), in which the State "imputed to [the officer] a new theory for the stop despite [the officer's] own testimony as......
-
Sanchez v. State, No. 49A02-0304-CR-362.
...general hunches or unparticularized suspicions." Jefferson v. State, 780 N.E.2d 398, 404 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (quoting Webb v. State, 714 N.E.2d 787, 788 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)). At the moment of the stop, no articulable facts existed that would cause the Officers to believe that criminal activity......