Title: State of Indiana v. James S. Hobbs, IV

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Gregory F. Zoeller 
 
 
 
 
 
Steven E. Ripstra 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
Jasper, Indiana 
 
Cynthia L. Ploughe 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 19S01-1001-CR-10 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Plaintiff below), 
 
v. 
 
JAMES S. HOBBS, IV., 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Defendant below). 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Dubois Superior Court, No. 19D01-0903-CM-175 
The Honorable Mark R. McConnell, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 19A01-0904-CR-187 
_________________________________ 
 
September 30, 2010 
Boehm, Justice. 
The defendant was arrested at a public restaurant for an unrelated crime.  A drug dog 
called to sniff the defendant’s car in the restaurant’s parking lot indicated narcotics in the car.  
We hold that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a warrantless search of an operational 
vehicle found in a public place if the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains 
evidence of a crime.  We also hold that the search was reasonable and did not violate the Indiana 
Constitution because the defendant was already under arrest and the dog’s alert gave the officers 
probable cause to believe the car contained contraband. 
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
Sept 30 2010, 3:47 pm
2 
Factual and Procedural Background 
This is an appeal by the State from the trial court’s order dismissing charges for lack of 
probable cause.  The entire record consists of the court’s ruling and the probable cause affidavit 
by the arresting officer.  The facts recited in the officer’s affidavit are as follow. 
On March 13, 2009, state troopers positioned themselves across the street from a Pizza 
Hut in DuBois County seeking to execute a Pike County felony arrest warrant for James Hobbs 
whom they believed to be employed at the restaurant.  Shortly before 9:15 p.m., the officers 
observed Hobbs leave the building and place an object in his automobile.  Traffic prevented the 
officers from making an immediate arrest, and by the time the troopers reached the parking lot 
Hobbs had returned to the restaurant.  The arrest was made inside the restaurant and a drug dog 
was summoned after Hobbs refused consent to search his vehicle.  The dog alerted, indicating 
illegal narcotics, and the troopers then searched the vehicle and discovered a cooler containing 
two scales, a box of sandwich bags, rolling papers, and marijuana. 
Hobbs was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, both 
as Class A misdemeanors.  At the initial hearing on these charges, the trial court found probable 
cause, but the next day the court sua sponte ruled that there was no probable cause to detain 
Hobbs on these charges because the evidence from Hobbs’s car had been illegally seized.  
Specifically, the trial court found that the dog’s alert provided probable cause to obtain a search 
warrant but because no warrant was obtained, the evidence was illegally seized.  The trial court 
ordered the evidence excluded and Hobbs released on those charges.  The State appealed. 
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the dog sniff provided probable cause that 
supported a warrantless search of Hobbs’s vehicle, and the seizure therefore did not violate the 
Fourth Amendment.  There was no violation of Article I, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution 
because Hobbs was already under arrest, and the dog’s alert gave strong indication of the 
presence of contraband in the vehicle.  Under these circumstances, the balance of minimal 
intrusion against strong basis to believe evidence of a crime rendered the search reasonable.  
State v. Hobbs, 915 N.E.2d 197, 200, 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).  We granted transfer. 
3 
Standard of Review 
We review issues of law incident to rulings on suppression of evidence de novo.  Myers 
v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind. 2005).  The trial court’s factual determinations after an 
evidentiary hearing are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, but rulings based solely on 
a paper record are reviewed de novo.  Pigg v. State, 929 N.E.2d 799, 804–05 (Ind. Ct. App. 
2010). 
I. Fourth Amendment Claims 
Hobbs contends that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.  It provides: 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants 
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and 
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be 
seized. 
Unless one of several established exceptions applies, law enforcement officers must obtain a 
warrant based on probable cause before executing a search or a seizure.  The parties address 
several potential exceptions to this requirement.  For the reasons explained below, we conclude 
that the “automobile exception” applied here, but the “search incident to arrest” did not. 
1. Search Incident to Arrest 
Hobbs contends that because the arrest occurred inside the Pizza Hut restaurant, away 
from his vehicle and there was no threat to officer safety, the search of his car was not authorized 
as a search incident to arrest.  We agree.  This exception to the warrant requirement was 
articulated in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 761–63 (1969), where the Court identified the 
“exigencies” attending an arrest that permit law enforcement officers to search the “area into 
which an arrestee might reach”: the need to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed, 
and concern for the safety of an officer making an arrest.  These considerations have specifically 
been cited to justify warrantless searches of automobiles because the smaller confines of an 
automobile are “generally, even if not inevitably” within reach of the arrestee.  New York v. 
Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981).  More recently, in Gant v. Arizona, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1723 
4 
(2009), the court made clear that the preservation of evidence justified a warrantless search only 
if the officer has a reasonable belief that the automobile contains evidence of the crime for which 
the suspect is being arrested.  Here, we agree with Hobbs that neither officer safety nor 
preservation of evidence justified the search of Hobbs’s car as one conducted incident to arrest.  
Hobbs had already been secured and was not close to the car, so he presented no threat to officer 
safety.  And because the arrest was for a different crime in another county, there was no 
reasonable belief that evidence of the “crime of arrest” would be found.  The exception for 
searches incident to arrest is therefore inapplicable. 
2. The Automobile Exception 
The “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement allows police to search a vehicle 
without obtaining a warrant if they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be 
found in the vehicle.  Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 164 (1949); Carroll v. United 
States, 267 U.S. 132, 153–54 (1925).  This doctrine is grounded in two notions: 1) a vehicle is 
readily moved and therefore the evidence may disappear while a warrant is being obtained, and 
2) citizens have lower expectations of privacy in their vehicles than in their homes.  California v. 
Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 (1985); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 (1976).  One 
reason for this diminished expectation of privacy in a car and its contents is that cars travel along 
public highways and are subject to pervasive government regulation.  Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 
U.S. 433, 441 (1973).  Most cases addressing the automobile exception arise in the context of an 
arrest or an investigatory stop of a motorist that gives rise to probable cause, but the exception is 
grounded in the mobililty of the vehicle and its location in a public area, not on whether the issue 
arises in the context of an arrest or a traffic stop. 
As the Supreme Court of the United States explained in Carney, the exception applies to 
vehicles that are readily mobile and are found in a non-residential area.  471 U.S. at 392–93.  The 
clear implication is that an operable vehicle found in a residential area may not be searched 
under this exception, but one located in a non-residential area, whether by reason of a police stop 
or not, is subject to the exception.  The theory underlying the exception for vehicles is that the 
vehicle is “being used for transportation.”  Id. at 394.  Put another way, a public parking lot is 
typically an interim destination, but a home’s driveway is often the end of that day’s travels.  We 
5 
recognize that police might anticipate finding an automobile at a suspect’s home.  However, 
permitting the exception to apply where the vehicle may be expected to be found would open the 
door to warrantless searches where there is no reason to avoid the judicial oversight 
contemplated by the Fourth Amendment.  See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 460–
64 (1971). 
The defendant contends he “was not in any position to control any aspect of the vehicle.”  
But the automobile exception does not require that there be an imminent possibility the vehicle 
may be driven away.  Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466–67 (1999) (citing United States v. 
Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 (1982)).  Under the exception, an operational vehicle is inherently 
mobile, whether or not a driver is behind the wheel or has ready access.  See Myers, 839 N.E.2d 
at 1152.  With probable cause, this inherent mobility is enough to conduct a warrantless search 
under the automobile exception.  Id.  Nothing in the record indicates that Hobbs’s vehicle was 
not operational.  Because Hobbs’s admittedly mobile vehicle was in the parking area of a 
restaurant, it was subject to the automobile exception and no warrant was required to search the 
vehicle if the officers had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of a crime. 
Officers are not authorized to detain a person stopped under reasonable suspicion of a 
crime for a longer period than is required to resolve the suspicion.  Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 
405, 407 (2005); Hibbel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 
185 (2004); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707–09 (1983); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19–
20 (1968).  But here Hobbs was arrested with probable cause supported by a warrant for a 
previous unrelated crime.  He was not detained based on suspicion of the crimes charged in this 
case, and his detention was not prolonged at all by the call for the dog or the subsequent search 
and seizure. 
The automobile exception requires probable cause to believe the vehicle contains 
evidence of a crime.  The officers’ own observations of Hobbs entering the vehicle and placing 
something inside gave probable cause to believe the contents of the car were possessed by 
Hobbs.  The subsequent dog sniff provided probable cause that the vehicle contained illicit 
drugs.  Neuhoff v. State, 708 N.E.2d 889, 891 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); Kenner v. State, 703 N.E.2d 
1122, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).  It is well settled that a dog sniff is not a search protected by the 
6 
Fourth Amendment.  Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409; Place, 462 U.S. at 707.  Accordingly, no degree 
of suspicion is required to summon the canine unit to the scene to conduct an exterior sniff of the 
car or to conduct the sniff itself. 
In sum, Hobbs’s car was an operational vehicle in a public place; the dog sniff was not 
conducted under circumstances where Hobbs was unconstitutionally seized, and the dog sniff 
provided probable cause that the car contained evidence of a crime.  There therefore was no 
Fourth Amendment violation in the search of Hobbs’s car or the seizure of the contraband found 
in the car. 
Indiana Constitutional Claim 
Hobbs also claims that the warrantless search violated Article I, section 11 of the Indiana 
Constitution.  The text of this provision of the Indiana Constitution is identical to the Fourth 
Amendment, but the two have been given somewhat different interpretations.  Shotts v. State, 
925 N.E.2d 719, 726 (Ind. 2010).  Conformity of a search to the Indiana Constitution turns on an 
evaluation of the “reasonableness” of the conduct of the law enforcement officers, not on the 
expectation of privacy commonly associated with Fourth Amendment analysis.  Litchfield v 
State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 359 (Ind. 2005).  Relevant considerations in evaluating reasonableness of 
a search under all the circumstances include the degree to which the search or seizure disrupts 
the suspect’s normal activities, and those facts and observations that support the officer’s 
decision to initiate the search or seizure.  Id.  We agree with the Court of Appeals that the 
officer’s actions here were reasonable.  There was no disruption of Hobbs’s normal activities.  At 
the time the search of his vehicle took place Hobbs was already under arrest for a different crime 
and would remain in custody whether the search took place or not.  Once the dog alerted, the 
officers had a high degree of confidence that the vehicle contained evidence of a crime, and the 
same considerations underlying the federal automobile exception support permitting the officers 
to secure the evidence without delay. 
Finally, Hobbs cites Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77, 78–79 (Ind. 1995), where police 
engaged in a warrantless search of an unoccupied car parked on a public street based on a 
witness’s report that a similar car with a nearly identical license number was seen leaving the 
scene of a robbery the day before.  In that case, however, although the car appeared to be the one 
7 
used in the robbery, there was no probable cause to believe the car contained evidence of a 
crime, and there was no certainty that detaining the car would not inconvenience its owner.  The 
balance of reasonableness was far greater in favor of immediate warrantless search of Hobbs’s 
car. 
Conclusion 
The trial court’s finding that the search violated Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 
11 of the Indiana Constitution, and its consequent suppression of the fruits of this search are 
reversed. 
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, J., concur. 
Sullivan, J., dissents with separate opinion, which Rucker, J., joins. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
Sullivan, Justice, dissenting. 
 
 
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s conclusion that the so-called “automobile 
exception” absolves the police from not obtaining a warrant in this case. 
 
I acknowledge that the cases recite that the automobile exception has two elements – the 
vehicle in question is “readily mobile” and “operational” – and that those elements are 
established in this case.  But I think the Court reads the precedents too narrowly when it decides 
the issue on that basis alone. 
 
In every one of the cases cited by the Court and in all of the automobile exception cases 
that I have reviewed, law enforcement officers’ initial contact with a suspect occurs either during 
a lawful traffic stop or at least in close proximity to the vehicle.  Said slightly differently, in all 
of the cases where the automobile exception to the warrant requirement has been held available, 
the vehicle in question has been not only readily mobile and operational but also in close 
proximity to the suspect at the time of initial contact with the police.  In Myers v. State, 839 
N.E.2d 1146, 1148-49 (Ind. 2005), United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 801 (1982), and 
Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 (1999), the police first encountered each defendant during 
a lawful traffic stop.  In Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 939 (1996), the police observed 
the defendant produce drugs from his car and engage in a series of drug transactions on the 
street.  And in California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 388 (1985), the police first contacted the 
defendant after he stepped outside in response to a knock on the motor home’s door. 
 
Exceptions to general rules, especially to constitutional rules like the warrant 
requirement, should be narrow, not broad.  Defendant’s lack of proximity to the automobile at 
the time of arrest – he was inside his place of employment and the car was parked outside in the 
lot –should render the automobile exception unavailable.  The trial court understood this and 
granted Defendant’s motion to suppress.  I would affirm that determination. 
 
Rucker, J., concurs.