Williams v. State, 49A04-0009-CR-371.
| Citation | 745 N.E.2d 241 |
| Case Date | February 26, 2001 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
745 N.E.2d 241
Timothy WILLIAMS, Appellant-Defendant,v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 49A04-0009-CR-371.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
February 26, 2001.
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Rosemary L. Borek, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
RILEY, Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Defendant, Timothy Williams (Williams), appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.
We reverse.
ISSUE
Williams raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial court erred in denying Williams' motion to suppress.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 12, 2000, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Officer Jack Tyndall of the Indianapolis Police Department observed Williams talking to a female, later identified as Charlene Smith (Smith), on the corner of East Ohio Street and North Randolph Avenue in Indianapolis, Indiana. Officer Tyndall observed Williams and Smith making some type of hand to hand exchange, but he did not see what was being exchanged. After this occurred, Smith looked over her shoulder, saw Officer Tyndall, and she and Williams then walked away in separate directions.
In response, Officer Tyndall quickly pulled his vehicle between Williams and Smith in order to stop them both. He then got out of his vehicle and told Williams and Smith to stop. Both Williams and Smith complied with Officer Tyndall's order to stop. Office Tyndall then told Williams and Smith to come over to the police car and place their hands on the car. As Williams walked towards the officer, he tripped and almost fell down. Williams next put his hand in the small pocket of his jeans; he then took his hand out and reinserted it into the large pocket of his jeans. At this point, Officer Tyndall drew his weapon and yelled at Williams to take his hand out of his pocket. Williams hesitated and then took his hand out of his pocket and made some movement as if he was throwing something away. Officer Tyndall placed Williams in handcuffs and while doing so Office Tyndall found a knife in Williams' pocket.
At that time, another officer arrived and Officer Tyndall searched the ground nearby with his flashlight to see if Williams had in fact thrown something on the ground. The officers were unable to find anything. Meanwhile, Officer Tyndall continued to talk to Williams and noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath and that his speech was slurred. Consequently, Williams was placed under arrest for public intoxication, a class B misdemeanor, Ind.Code § 7.1-5-1-3. Williams was then searched and a small plastic bag was found in his jacket pocket. The bag contained a substance that was later determined to be cocaine. As a result, Williams was also charged with possession of cocaine, a class D felony, Ind.Code § 35-48-4-6.
On July 12, 2000, Williams filed a motion to suppress the evidence leading to his arrest on both charges. Williams argued that Office Tyndall did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop him, and therefore, any evidence discovered as a result of the illegal detention, search and seizure should be suppressed. On July 26, 2000, a hearing was held on this motion and the following day, the trial court denied the motion.
This interlocutory appeal followed.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Williams argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Essentially, Williams argues that Officer Tyndall lacked a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, and as such, the evidence discovered as a result of the stop should have been suppressed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glass, 21A01-0201-CR-43.
...1994), reh'g denied. This court accepts the factual findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 244 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). In reviewing the trial court's decision, we consider the evidence most favorable to the ruling together with any adve......
-
Townsend v. State , 71A05–1109–CR–471.
...392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883. Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Judicial interpretation of what con......
-
Rutledge v. State, No. 85A04–1407–CR–330.
...5 N.E.3d at 368.[28 N.E.3d 291 [24] Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Judicial interpretation of what c......
-
E.P. v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-3020
...392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at 1883. Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State , 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. "Judicial interpretation of wha......
-
State v. Glass, 21A01-0201-CR-43.
...1994), reh'g denied. This court accepts the factual findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 244 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). In reviewing the trial court's decision, we consider the evidence most favorable to the ruling together with any adve......
-
Townsend v. State , 71A05–1109–CR–471.
...392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883. Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Judicial interpretation of what con......
-
Rutledge v. State, 85A04–1407–CR–330.
...5 N.E.3d at 368.[28 N.E.3d 291 [24] Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State, 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. “Judicial interpretation of what c......
-
E.P. v. State
...392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at 1883. Whether an investigatory stop is justified is determined on a case by case basis. Williams v. State , 745 N.E.2d 241, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. "Judicial interpretation of wha......