Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 1 of 12

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Susan D. Rayl

Morgan Brading

Harshman | Ponist Smith & Rayl 

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Indiana Attorney General

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rashad Shareef Bryant,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 30, 2023

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-CR-18

Interlocutory Appeal from the 

Hendricks Superior Court

The Honorable Stephenie LeMayLuken, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D05-2201-F2-1

Opinion by Judge Crone

Judges Brown and Felix concur.

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Rashad Shareef Bryant was arrested after a traffic stop and charged with 

multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses. He filed a motion to suppress the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 2 of 12

evidence seized during the stop as well as any testimony about that evidence, 

arguing that the stop was unreasonably prolonged so that a police dog could 

sniff his vehicle for contraband. After a hearing, the trial court denied Bryant’s 

motion. On appeal, Bryant argues that the ruling is erroneous. We disagree and 

therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At 2:22 a.m. on January 29, 2022, Brownsburg Police Department Officer 

Elsiana Crosby activated the emergency lights on her patrol car and stopped 

Bryant’s SUV after he turned from Connector Road onto North Ronald Reagan 

Parkway. During a July 2022 deposition that was taken in anticipation of the 

October 2022 suppression hearing,

1 Officer Crosby testified that she stopped 

Bryant because he made “a fast turn, a little bit more erratic, something you 

would see out of an impaired driver typically. And right of the fog line, left of 

the centerline- - or, at least touching the [right of the fog line].” Ex. Vol. 3 at 5.

Footage from Officer Crosby’s bodycam video shows that she told Bryant that 

she pulled him over for not using his turn signal when he “came off Connector 

Road.” State’s Ex. 3 at 00:07. Bryant apologized, and the officer said that it was 

“no big deal[.]” Id. at 00:08.

[3] Officer Crosby asked Bryant for his driver’s license and vehicle registration, 

which he gave to her, and asked where he was going. Bryant replied that he was 

1 Officer Crosby was scheduled for a military deployment and was unavailable for the hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 3 of 12

“picking [his] friend up from this club.” Id. at 00:12. The officer asked Bryant 

what kind of club it was and where it was. Bryant said that he “didn’t even 

know the name” of the club and that he was going to look at his friend’s 

directions to the club when he got to a gas station. Id. at 00:46. Officer Crosby 

asked Bryant why he was going to a gas station. Bryant stated that he “just 

need[ed] to go to the gas station” and that he did not do anything wrong, and 

he asked her to write him “a ticket or whatever you’re gonna do.” Id. at 01:07.

Officer Crosby told Bryant that she was “not gonna write a ticket[.]” Id. at 

01:09.2 Bryant said, “Thank you. I’m not drinking, no nothing.” Id. at 01:12. 

Officer Crosby stated that she was “doing OWI interdiction” and had asked 

him about the gas station because she noticed that he had gas in his vehicle. Id. 

at 01:13. Bryant said, “I’m going to set up the directions when I get over

[there].” Id. at 01:21. Officer Crosby told Bryant to “hang tight” and walked 

toward her car with his license and registration. Id. at 01:22. En route, she 

remarked, “I don’t know, might not be so good.” Id. at 01:30.

[4] Officer Crosby reentered her car, turned on the dome light, and exclaimed, “I 

wish I could smell[,]” apparently referring to her inability to detect the odor of 

an alcoholic beverage. Id. at 01:39.

3 She entered information from Bryant’s 

registration into her laptop computer and radioed Canine Officer Bradley Carr 

2 In her deposition, Officer Crosby stated that she tells motorists that she is not going to write a ticket as a 

“tactic” that “typically [...] relaxes people.” Ex. Vol. 3 at 7.

3 Bryant incorrectly interprets this remark as “[Bryant] does not smell[.]” Reply Br. at 7.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 4 of 12

to ask if he was “available to swing by [her] stop[.]” Id. at 02:48. Officer Carr 

responded affirmatively. Officer Crosby scrolled through information on her 

computer screen, which included a photo of a person who resembled Bryant. Id. 

at 04:16. She then muttered, “Condition,” and scanned the barcode on the back 

of Bryant’s license with a handheld scanner. Id. at 04:35-04:51. Officer Crosby

interacted with her computer and pulled up several different screens, one of 

which showed a photo of a person who resembled Bryant Id. at 06:02.

[5] Officer Crosby then conducted Google searches on her phone. Id. at 06:11.

Slightly over a minute later, she put down her phone and turned off the dome 

light. Id. at 07:28. Shortly after that, she turned the dome light back on and 

apparently muted her bodycam audio. Id. at 08:49. Officer Carr approached 

Officer Crosby’s vehicle, and she rotated her laptop screen to face the front 

passenger window. Id. at 09:19. She unmuted her bodycam audio, apparently 

mid-conversation, and stated, “Been a while, but worth looking at, I think.” Id. 

at 09:24. Officer Carr asked, “Are you gonna pull him out? Is it just him?” Id. at 

09:26. Officer Crosby replied, “Yeah, I was gonna see if you would go up there 

and smell him.” Id. at 09:29. Officer Carr said, “OK, I’ll ask him if he has his 

insurance,” and started walking around the front of Officer Crosby’s car toward 

Bryant’s vehicle. Id. at 09:31. Officer Crosby called out, “And hey, you can ask 

him why his license are [sic] conditional, and then you can pull him out and 

we’ll put him in the front seat of my car.” Id. at 09:40.

[6] At that point, Officer Carr’s bodycam also began recording. He approached 

Bryant, who was still sitting in his vehicle, and asked, “Hey, why does your 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 5 of 12

license show conditional status?” State’s Ex. 4 at 00:09. Bryant replied, “Uh, I 

don’t know. I used to have a conditional license ’cause I had, uh, back in 2015 I 

had to apply to get my license back.” Id. at 00:19. Officer Carr replied, “OK. 

Do you have anything illegal in the car right now?” Id. at 00:20. Bryant said, 

“No, sir.” Id. at 00:21. Officer Carr asked, “Do you have a problem with giving 

consent to search the vehicle?” Id. at 00:24. Bryant replied, “No, no, I don’t 

want my car searched. I didn’t do anything wrong.” Id. at 00:28. The officer 

asked, “Well, do me a favor, will you just hop out for me?” Id. at 00:29. Bryant 

replied, “No, sir, for what?” Id. at 00:30. Officer Carr said, “Because I’m gonna 

run my dog around your car, and you can’t stay in it.” Id. at 00:32. Bryant said, 

“No, no.” Id. at 00:33. The officer said, “Yeah, yeah, you need to step out of 

the car.” Id. at 00:34. Bryant again asked, “For what?” Id. at 00:35. Officer Carr

replied, “Because the Supreme Court has said we have the right to ask you to 

step out of the car for officer safety. I’m gonna run my dog around the car, he 

bites, and I’m not gonna let him bite you.” Id. at 00:43. Bryant insisted that he 

had not done anything wrong, that he did not want his vehicle searched, and 

that “it was a turn signal, that’s all that’s been going on.” Id. at 00:47.

[7] Bryant refused to get out of his vehicle, and a back-and-forth ensued between 

him and Officer Carr, who was soon joined by Officer Crosby. Officer Crosby 

asked Officer Carr if he had smelled any alcohol, and he replied, “I didn’t smell 

anything.” Id. at 03:02. Officer Crosby asked Bryant why his license was 

conditional and what those conditions were, and he replied that he could drive 

for work and was a Lyft driver. Id. at 04:43. Officer Crosby said, “I thought you 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 6 of 12

were picking your buddy up.” Id. at 04:45. Bryant replied, “Yes, I am.” Id. at 

04:47. The officer said, “Oh, on Lyft, OK, so you have the app?” Id. at 04:48. 

Bryant said that he did. The officer asked if she could see the app, and Bryant 

replied, “I don’t have to do all that.” Id. at 04:57. Officer Crosby reminded 

Bryant that his license was “conditional,” told him to “hang tight,” id. at 05:01, 

and returned to her car to call her shift supervisor, Sergeant Matt Wing.

[8] Bryant remained in his vehicle with the window rolled up and made several 

phone calls. He rolled down his window for a brief interchange with Officer 

Carr, and then Sergeant Wing arrived and asked him to exit the vehicle to avoid 

any use of force or a resisting charge. Negotiations proved fruitless, and the 

sergeant asked Officer Carr to get his dog. Id. at 12:44. Ultimately, after giving 

several warnings and asking Bryant to unlock his door, Officer Crosby shattered 

Bryant’s window. Id. at 20:52. Bryant was removed from the vehicle and

handcuffed. Shortly thereafter, Officer Carr’s dog alerted to the presence of a 

controlled substance at the front “passenger side door seam[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 at 17. 

Officer Heather Foote searched behind the vehicle’s glove box and found a bag 

containing three baggies of cocaine, a scale, a Glock handgun with a loaded 

magazine, and a loaded Glock extended thirty-round magazine. Police patted 

down Bryant near Officer Crosby’s car, and an additional baggie of cocaine was 

found in that area.

[9] The State charged Bryant with level 2 felony dealing in cocaine, level 3 felony 

possession of cocaine, level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a 

serious violent felon, class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 7 of 12

license, class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and class C 

misdemeanor violation of driving conditions. The State also alleged that Bryant 

was a habitual offender. Bryant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized

during the traffic stop and any testimony regarding that evidence, arguing that 

the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged to allow the dog to sniff his vehicle.

At the hearing on the motion, Sergeant Wing and Officers Carr and Foote 

testified. Officer Crosby’s deposition was admitted into evidence, as were the 

police incident report and DVDs of the officers’ bodycam footage. In November

2022, the trial court issued an order summarily denying Bryant’s motion. This 

interlocutory appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Bryant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. “We 

review a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress deferentially, 

construing conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling, but we 

will also consider any substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the 

defendant.” Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind. 2014). When the trial 

court’s ruling concerns the constitutionality of a search or seizure, it presents a 

question of law, which we address de novo. Id. We may affirm the denial of a 

motion to suppress on any legal theory supported by the record. State v. Jones, 

191 N.E.3d 878, 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied.

[11] “The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects persons from 

unreasonable search and seizure by prohibiting, as a general rule, searches and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 8 of 12

seizures conducted without a warrant supported by probable cause.” Clark v. 

State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013).

4 “As a deterrent mechanism, evidence 

obtained in violation of this rule is generally not admissible in a prosecution 

against the victim of the unlawful search or seizure absent evidence of a 

recognized exception.” Id. “The State has the burden of demonstrating that the 

measures it used to seize evidence were constitutional.” Porter v. State, 985 

N.E.2d 348, 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

[12] Bryant does not challenge the validity of the traffic stop itself, which was based

on one or more traffic violations witnessed by Officer Crosby. See Austin v. State, 

997 N.E.2d 1027, 1034 (Ind. 2013) (“It is unequivocal under our jurisprudence 

that even a minor traffic violation is sufficient to give an officer probable cause 

to stop the driver of a vehicle.”). Moreover, it is well settled that a dog sniff is 

not a search protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. Tinker v. State, 129 N.E.3d 251, 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. 

denied. “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.” Id. at 255-56 (quoting State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (Ind. 2010)).

4 Bryant summarizes a case that relied on the similarly worded Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana 

Constitution, but he provides no fact-specific analysis based on Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005),

in his initial brief. Accordingly, he has waived any state constitutional claim. See White v. State, 199 N.E.3d 

1249, 1253 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (finding state constitutional claim waived due to appellant’s failure to 

provide separate analysis under Article 1, Section 11), trans. denied (2023); see also Watkins v. State, 85 N.E.3d 

597, 600 (Ind. 2017) (noting that “Litchfield governs the reasonableness of ... traffic stops [and] vehicle 

searches”). Bryant impermissibly attempts to avoid waiver by including a Litchfield analysis in his reply brief, 

to which the State had no opportunity to respond.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 9 of 12

[13] “A narcotics dog sweep, however, becomes ‘an unreasonable investigatory 

detention if the motorist is held for longer than necessary to complete the 

officer’s work related to the traffic violation and the officer lacks reasonable 

suspicion that the motorist is engaged in criminal activity.’” Id. at 256 (quoting 

Austin, 997 N.E.2d at 1034. “[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the 

traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the

traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns[.]” 

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (citations omitted). “Because 

addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is 

necessary to effectuate that purpose.” Id. (citation, quotation marks, and 

brackets omitted). “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the 

traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Id.

In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be 

justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to 

examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of 

investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions 

quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the 

defendant.

United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985).

[14] “Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission 

includes ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 

355 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “Typically such inquiries 

involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding 

warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 10 of 12

proof of insurance.” Id. By contrast, a dog sniff “is a measure aimed at detecting

evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Id. (citation, quotation marks, and 

brackets omitted). “Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the 

ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s 

traffic mission.” Id. at 356. “The critical question ... is not whether the dog sniff 

occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, ... but whether conducting the 

sniff prolongs—i.e., adds time to—the stop[.]” Id. at 357 (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). “The burden is on the State to show that the time for 

the traffic stop was not increased due to a canine sniff.” Tinker, 129 N.E.3d at 

256.

[15] Bryant argues,

The State did not offer any evidence or testimony as to whether 

Officer Crosby was diligently pursuing an investigation into the 

traffic stop or where she was in her investigation when Officer 

Carr arrived or thereafter. Officer Crosby’s body-camera footage 

merely shows her sitting in her car and running Google and 

MyCase searches.

Appellant’s Br. at 11-12.

[16] The foregoing factual summary establishes that Officer Crosby was 

investigating Bryant’s driving privileges, which was well within her mission, at 

least until she started conducting Google searches on her phone, which may or 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 11 of 12

may not have been in furtherance of her investigation.

5 And it was also within 

her mission to question Bryant about the conditions on his license.

Furthermore, Officer Crosby had not yet dispelled (and had been unable to 

dispel by olfactory means) her suspicion, based on Bryant’s “erratic” turn onto 

Ronald Reagan Parkway, that he was impaired as a result of alcohol 

consumption.

[17] When Officer Carr arrived, Officer Crosby delegated issues related to Bryant’s 

license conditions and possible intoxication to him, at least initially.

6 And 

because the purpose of the stop had not yet been accomplished, it was 

permissible for Officer Carr to order Bryant to exit his vehicle, and Bryant was 

obligated to comply with that order. See Tumblin v. State, 736 N.E.2d 317, 321 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“Law enforcement officers may, as a matter of course, order 

the driver and passengers to exit a lawfully stopped vehicle.”) (emphasis added) 

(citing, inter alia, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), and Maryland v. 

Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997)), trans. denied (2002).

7 But Bryant repeatedly 

refused to comply, and it was his obstinancy, rather than the dog sniff itself, 

5 No testimony was elicited on this specific point at Officer Crosby’s deposition, although the officer testified 

that she was “still working” when Officer Carr approached Bryant’s vehicle. Ex. Vol. 3 at 8.

6 Officer Crosby could have asked Bryant to perform field sobriety tests, such as a walk-and-turn test or a 

one-leg-stand test, but we note that one of Bryant’s excuses for refusing to exit his vehicle was that he did not 

“even have socks on[,]” State’s Ex. 4 at 08:47, and the vehicle’s rear window was coated with frost.

7 That Officer Carr asked Bryant to exit the vehicle so that he could conduct a dog sniff is inconsequential.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-18 | August 30, 2023 Page 12 of 12

that significantly prolonged the duration of the traffic stop.

8 Consequently, we 

affirm the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

[18] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.

8 During the standoff, Officer Crosby asked Bryant about the conditions on his license, and his evasive 

response obviously failed to dispel her suspicions about whether he was legally operating his vehicle.

Ultimately, Bryant was charged with violating those conditions.