Young v. State, No. 49A02-0709-CR-829.
| Docket Nº | No. 49A02-0709-CR-829. |
| Citation | 886 N.E.2d 636 |
| Case Date | May 27, 2008 |
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Patricia Caress McMath, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
MAY, Judge.
Jeffrey Young appeals his conviction of possession of cocaine, a Class D felony.1 He argues the cocaine was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. We reverse.
On June 9, 2007, Officer Greg Milburn stopped a vehicle because he could not see its license plate. As Officer Milburn approached the vehicle, he saw a temporary license plate attached to the inside of the rear window. Officer Milburn approached the driver and asked for identification. The driver identified himself as Jeffrey Young. Officer Milburn discovered that Young's license was suspended and he had a prior conviction of driving while suspended. Officer Milburn arrested Young. While searching Young's vehicle in preparation for impoundment, Officer Milburn found cocaine.
At a bench trial, Young moved to suppress the evidence Officer Milburn obtained after he learned Young had a valid license plate. The trial court took the motion under advisement and allowed the State to introduce evidence pending the court's ruling. After the close of evidence, the trial court denied Young's motion to suppress and found him guilty of possession of cocaine.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Meredith v. State, 878 N.E.2d 453, 455 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). A police officer may briefly detain someone whom the officer believes has committed an infraction. State v. Harris, 702 N.E.2d 722, 726 (Ind. Ct.App.1998). "Once the purpose of the traffic stop is completed, a motorist cannot be further detained unless something that occurred during the stop caused the officer to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot." United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 264 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied 528 U.S. 1176, 120 S.Ct. 1207, 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000). "If the ... detention exceeds its proper investigative scope, the seized items must be excluded under the `fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine.'" Id.
Young's case is strikingly similar to Meredith. Officer John Lackey saw Meredith had a temporary plate in the rear window of his vehicle, but he could not read the expiration date, so he stopped Meredith. As he approached Meredith's vehicle, Officer Lackey saw the temporary plate was still valid. However, he proceeded to the driver's door. Officer Lackey believed he smelled alcohol, so he asked Meredith to take a portable breath test. The test did not indicate Meredith had been drinking. Nevertheless, Officer Lackey sought permission to search the vehicle, and Meredith consented. Officer Lackey found cocaine. We held the evidence was inadmissible:
... [W]e conclude that once Officer Lackey had verified the valid expiration date on the temporary tag, and prior to any personal contact with Meredith, the objective purpose for the investigative detention had been satisfied. Thus, Officer Lackey was constitutionally barred from detaining Meredith any further.
Meredith, 878 N.E.2d at 456; see also United States v. McSwain, 29 F.3d 558 (10th Cir.1994) (evidence seized from vehicle was suppressed where officer confirmed driver's temporary registration sticker was valid as he approached the vehicle).
The State argues displaying the temporary plate inside the rear window, instead of outside on the rear of the vehicle, is an infraction. Ind.Code § 9-18-2-26 provides in relevant part:
(a) License plates shall be displayed as follows:
(1) For a motorcycle, trailer, semitrailer, or recreational vehicle, upon the rear of the vehicle.
(2) For a tractor or dump truck, upon the front of the vehicle.
(3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...N.E.2d 991 YOUNG v. STATE. Supreme Court of Indiana. May 28, 2009. 886 N.E.2d 636 Transfer granted with...
-
Young v. State, No. 49S02-0905-CR-252.
...violated the search and seizure clauses of both the federal and Indiana constitutions. The Court of Appeals reversed. Young v. State, 886 N.E.2d 636 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). We granted The defendant's constitutional claims rely upon his assertion that his vehicle was licensed and properly display......
-
Young v. State
...N.E.2d 991 YOUNG v. STATE. Supreme Court of Indiana. May 28, 2009. 886 N.E.2d 636 Transfer granted with...
-
Young v. State, No. 49S02-0905-CR-252.
...violated the search and seizure clauses of both the federal and Indiana constitutions. The Court of Appeals reversed. Young v. State, 886 N.E.2d 636 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). We granted The defendant's constitutional claims rely upon his assertion that his vehicle was licensed and properly display......