Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 1 of 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Deborah Markisohn

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Victor Gersdorff,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 17, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1608-CR-1785

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Linda Brown, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49F10-1404-CM-21772

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 2 of 15

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Victor Gersdorff (Gersdorff), appeals his conviction for 

Count I, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-

11(1); Count II, possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-

48-4-8.3(a)(1)(b); Count III, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C 

misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-30-5-2(a); and Count IV, operating a vehicle with a 

schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C 

misdemeanor, I.C. § 9-30-5-1(c).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUE

[3] Gersdorff raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial 

court abused its discretion by admitting evidence discovered following a police 

sobriety checkpoint. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] During the early morning hours of April 27, 2014, a sobriety checkpoint was 

operated by the Indianapolis Metro Police Department (IMPD) at 1305 Broad 

Ripple Avenue, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Lieutenant Mark McCardia 

(Lieutenant McCardia) of the IMPD supervised the checkpoint. He had been 

part of “hundreds” of checkpoints and had been the commanding officer on “at 

least” fifty checkpoints. (Transcript pp. 25, 26). The checkpoint was approved 

by the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership, the police chief, and the 

prosecutor’s office. Ten days prior to the checkpoint being operated, a news 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 3 of 15

release was emailed to several television, radio, and print media organizations, 

which listed the date, time, and location of the checkpoint.

[5] The specific objective of the checkpoint was to “deter drunk driving, [and] 

apprehend drunk drivers.” (Tr. p. 15). Its location was chosen because “crash 

data from the past few years” had revealed “a lot of drunk driver arrests and 

drunk driving crashes” in that area. (Tr. p. 15). Multiple signs, “like five (5) 

foot reflector signs,” were posted to alert drivers of the upcoming checkpoint, 

and the checkpoint was avoidable from all directions. (Tr. p. 19). The 

checkpoint was well lit with street lights, vehicle flashers, emergency 

equipment, and reflective signs and cones. The weather was clear and the 

temperature was approximately sixty degrees Fahrenheit.

[6] In working the checkpoint, the officers were mandated to follow a specific 

procedure. Specifically, officers were required to direct two vehicles at the

same time to the checkpoint. They could “not deviate” from this sequence, and 

all vehicles in the sequence had to be checked. (State’s Exh. 1). The officers 

were required to identify themselves and “advise the motorist ‘You have been 

stopped at a Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership Sobriety Checkpoint. 

We use checkpoints to deter impaired drivers. Have you had anything to drink 

this evening?’” (State’s Exh. 1). They then asked to see the driver’s license and 

registration. A vehicle would be detained for two minutes or less unless further 

investigation was warranted. If a driver exhibited signs of impairment, the 

officers would instruct “the driver [to] pull the vehicle into the ‘pull-off’ area.” 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 4 of 15

(State’s Exh. 1). That night, eighteen vehicles went through the checkpoint, 

with two drivers being apprehended.

[7] Gersdorff was the first car that pulled into the checkpoint that evening, driving 

“approximately maybe twenty-five miles per hour.” (Tr. p. 42). He stopped at 

Captain Donald Weilhamer’s (Captain Weilhamer) position. When Gersdorff 

rolled down his window, Captain Weilhamer observed “a strong odor of 

marijuana coming from the vehicle.” (Tr. p. 43). Gersdorff had “problems 

pulling [his driver’s license] out of his wallet” and “he was slow at answering”

questions. (Tr. p. 43). Captain Weilhamer asked Gersdorff to exit his vehicle. 

After Gersdorff moved to the side, Officer Robert Ferguson (Officer Ferguson), 

who was assisting Captain Weilhamer, “moved the vehicle out of the line.” 

(Tr. p. 44). Captain Weilhamer informed Gersdorff that he wanted to do some 

field sobriety checks. While talking to Gersdorff, Captain Weilhamer noticed 

Gersdorff’s dilated and bloodshot eyes and “slower than usual” walk. (Tr. p. 

44). Captain Weilhamer administered three field sobriety tests, two of which 

Gersdorff passed. While Gersdorff participated in the field sobriety tests, 

Officer Ferguson moved Gersdorff’s vehicle. In the car, Officer Ferguson 

noticed a “very strong” smell of marijuana. (Tr. p. 73). The odor was 

particularly strong “right where the center console” was. (Tr. p. 74). He raised 

the center console and noticed a black bag. In opening the bag, Officer 

Ferguson found a “raw, green, leafy substance” along with “a pipe,” which is 

“commonly used to ingest marijuana into the system.” (Tr. p. 75). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 5 of 15

[8] Captain Weilhamer informed Gersdorff of his Miranda rights. Gersdorff agreed 

to answer some questions and told Captain Weilhamer that he had smoked 

marijuana earlier that day. Captain Weilhamer read Gersdorff the implied 

consent law and Gersdorff agreed to a blood draw. After the blood draw, 

Captain Weilhamer arrested Gersdorff. Upon searching him, Captain 

Weilhamer disovered a black box in Gersdorff’s lower pocket that contained a 

“greenish-brown, leafy-type substance,” which later tested positive for 

marijuana. (Tr. p. 61).

[9] On April 27, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Gersdorff with 

Count I, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; Count II, possession 

of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count III, operating while 

intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor. The State later amended the Information 

to add Count IV, operating a vehicle with a schedule I or II controlled 

substance or its metabolite in the body, a Class C misdemeanor. On July 12, 

2016, the trial court conducted a bench trial. During trial, Gersdorff moved to 

suppress the evidence discovered during the sobriety checkpoint, which was 

denied by the trial court. At the close of the evidence, the trial court found 

Gersdorff guilty as charged. At the sentencing phase, the trial court merged 

Count IV into Count III and entered judgment of conviction on Counts I, II, 

and III. The court sentenced Gersdorff to concurrent terms of 365 days with 

361 days suspended to probation on Count I, 365 days with 361 days suspended 

to probation on Count II, and 60 days with 50 days suspended to probation on 

Count III.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 6 of 15

[10] Gersdorff now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[11] Gersdorff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting 

evidence discovered during a sobriety checkpoint, which he claims was in 

violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The standard of 

review for admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. Weinberger v. 

Boyer, 956 N.E.2d 1095, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. The trial court 

abuses its discretion only when its action is clearly erroneous and against the 

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. Even when 

the trial court erred in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence, this court will 

reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice. Id. 

[12] Article I, Section 11, must be liberally construed to guarantee the right of the 

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, and to protect 

them against unreasonable search and seizure. King v. State, 877 N.E.2d 518, 

521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The purpose of this provision is to protect against 

unreasonable police activity in areas of life that Indiana citizens regard as 

private. Id. 

[13] In Gerschoffer, our supreme court “join[ed] those jurisdictions rejecting the 

contention that all roadblocks are per se violations of state constitutional 

requirements” and set out the criteria to determine whether a particular sobriety 

checkpoint “was conducted in a constitutionally reasonable manner.” 

Gerschoffer v. State, 763 N.E.2d 960, 966 (Ind. 2002). The court held that “[a] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 7 of 15

minimally intrusive roadblock designed and implemented on neutral criteria 

that safely and effectively targets a serious danger specific to vehicular 

operation is constitutionally reasonable, unlike the random and purely 

discretionary stops we have disapproved.” Id. Among the relevant factors to be 

considered and weighed are: (1) whether the roadblock was staged pursuant to 

a formal, neutral plan approved by appropriate officials; (2) the objective, 

location, and timing of the checkpoint, taking these factors into account to 

determine whether the seizure was well calculated to effectuate its purpose; (3) 

the amount of discretion exercised by field officers conducting the checkpoint, 

with a goal of minimal discretion to ensure against arbitrary or inconsistent 

actions by the screening officers; (4) the degree of intrusion and whether the 

roadblock was avoidable; (5) whether the surrounding conditions of the 

checkpoint were safe; and (6) whether the checkpoint was effective. Id. at 967-

70. We will evaluate each factor in turn.

I. Formal, Neutral Plan

[14] Gersdorff claims that Lieutenant McCardia’s “mere assertion that ‘we have 

standardized plans’ and that ‘there are all sorts of plans involved’ does not 

allow this [c]ourt to review whether it was a reasonable, neutral plan.” 

(Appellant’s Br. p. 14). In Gerschoffer, the guidelines police followed in 

conducting the roadblock were not made a part of the record on appeal, so our 

supreme court was unable to “assess their efficacy.” Id. at 967. Instead, the 

court cited with approval guidelines set out in a Connecticut case, State v. 

Boisvert, 671 A.2d 834 (Conn. App. 1996). In Boisvert, the guidelines 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 8 of 15

promulgated by the public safety commissioner required, “among other things, 

advance approval by ranking officers; a careful choice of location, date and time 

‘after considering many factors, including the safety of the public and those 

conducting the operation and the potential inconvenience to the public’; 

advance publicity; and assurance to drivers that the stop was routine.” 

Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 967 (quoting Boisvert, 671 A.2d at 837). 

[15] Our review of the evidence indicates that the checkpoint had been approved by 

the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership, the police chief, and the 

prosecutor’s office. The choice of location was based on “crash data from the 

past few years” which had revealed “a lot of drunk driver arrests and drunk 

driving crashes” in that particular area. (Tr. p. 15). The officers conducting the 

sobriety checkpoint had participated in many checkpoints and had several years 

of experience of conducting them. The State presented evidence and entered 

into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1, the checkpoint’s briefing, its goals, objectives, 

and procedures—which was implemented by Lieutenant McCardia while 

conducting the checkpoint. 

[16] The checkpoint itself was well advertised with multiple signs alerting drivers of 

its presence. It was well lit with street lights, reflective signs, and cones. While 

conducting the checkpoint, the officers were required to follow a specific 

procedure, which mandated the pattern of cars to be pulled into the checkpoint, 

and provided the officers with a specific script to follow and advisements to 

administer. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 9 of 15

[17] Ten days prior to the operation of the checkpoint, a press release notifying the 

date, time, and location of the checkpoint was sent to the following radio, 

television, and print media: the Speedway Police Department; Advocates 

Against Impaired Driving; the Associated Pres; Fox 59 News; the Indiana

Herald; the Indianapolis Star; the Indy Recorder; La Voz De Newspaper; 

Media Relations, IMPD; the Southside Times; The Daily Journal; The 

Greenfield Reporter; Univision; WEDJ; WFBQ Q95; WFMS Radio; WFYI; 

WIBC Radio; WISH TV Channel 8; WRTV Channel 6; WTHR Channel 13; 

WTLC Radio; and the City of Lawrence. Although Gersdorff contends that 

there was no proof that someone actually publicized the impending roadblock, 

Gerschoffer noted that “[l]aw enforcement agencies cannot control what the 

media chooses to report, of course, and may not have funds to pay for 

publicity.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970-71. While no evidence is included 

that the information from the press release was disseminated by the media to 

the general public, the record includes evidence supporting a reasonable 

inference that the press release was distributed. See also Sublett v. State, 815 

N.E.2d 1031, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (finding a nearly identical sobriety 

checkpoint constitutional under the Indiana Constitution where the police “did 

not know whether the media actually published the information”). 

Accordingly, as a formal, neutral plan was in place to conduct the checkpoint, 

we cannot say that this element weighs against its constitutionality. 

II. Objective, Location, and Timing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 10 of 15

[18] Next, Gersdorff claims that “the objective, location and timing of the roadblock 

was not sufficiently established at trial.” (Appellant’s App.p. 16). In Gerschoffer, 

the stated objective—rejected by the court—for the checkpoint was a “montage 

of objectives, including the generic law enforcement goal of ‘mak[ing] sure 

everybody is doing what they’re supposed to [do].’” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 

968. In contrast here, the objective was “[t]o deter impaired driving and 

increase the risk of apprehension of impaired drivers.” (State’s Exh. 1). The 

timing of the checkpoint was 11:00p.m. until 1:30a.m. Pursuant to Lieutenant 

McCardia’s testimony, the location was chosen based on previous years’ crash 

data which had revealed numerous drunk driver arrests and crashes in the 

particular area. Again, this element weighs in favor of the constitutionality of 

the checkpoint.

III. Police Discretion

[19] Considering police discretion a “critical factor,” the Gerschoffer court requires 

“sufficiently explicit guidance to ensure against arbitrary or inconsistent actions 

by the screening officers.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 968-69. The record 

reflects that standardized instructions were given to ensure that officers 

addressed drivers in a consistent manner. Specifically, State’s Exhibit 1 details 

the routine to be followed during the checkpoint as follows:

Sequence of Vehicle Selection and Public Interaction
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 11 of 15

Do not deviate from the sequence of vehicle selection. All

vehicles in the sequence will be checked, including police and fire 

vehicles.

Identify yourself and advise the motorist “You have been stopped 

at a Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership Sobriety 

Checkpoint. We use checkpoints to deter impaired drivers. 

Have you had anything to drink this evening?” Check for DWI 

clues. Advise the motorist you would like to see a driver’s 

license and registration.

Vehicles should be held in line no longer than 2 minutes.

If alcohol is detected or additional investigation is needed, have 

the driver pull the vehicle into the “pull-off” area.

Large trucks may be checked on the street to lessen change of 

damage to the parking lots. However, trucks should be pulled 

out of the way so not to block traffic.

Please assist vehicles out of the checkpoint.

Avoidance of a checkpoint alone does not constitute a legal stop.

Testimony by officers at trial confirmed that the officers behaved accordingly

during the checkpoint. The officers pulled in two vehicles at the same time after 

which they gave the drivers the introductory statements and acted in conformity 

with the script. Given the lack of discretion and the scripted, consistent manner 

in which the officers had to conduct themselves, this element weighs in favor of 

constitutionality of the checkpoint.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 12 of 15

IV. Degree of Intrusion

[20] “In evaluating the degree of intrusion, we also consider whether the roadblock 

was avoidable. The more avoidable a roadblock is, the less it interferes with the 

liberty of individual drivers.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 969. Here, prior to 

arriving at the checkpoint, drivers were alerted by “five (5) foot reflector signs.” 

(Tr. p. 19). Lieutenant McCardia testified that no matter in which direction a 

car was travelling, the checkpoint was avoidable from all directions. 

Accordingly, and Gersdorff agrees, the signage and possibility of avoiding the 

checkpoint weigh in favor of it being constitutional. 

V. Safety of the Checkpoint

[21] Here, the State offered testimony that the checkpoint was located in a well-lit 

area, where vehicles could be pulled off the roadway into an adjacent parking 

lot without impending traffic. See Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970; see also Sublett, 

815 N.E.2d at 1039 (“[T]he checkpoint was safely conducted in a well-lighted 

area and detained motorists were diverted into an adjacent parking lot”). The 

evidence indicates that the weather was clear and the temperature was 

approximately sixty degrees Fahrenheit. Drivers were stopped in the eastbound 

lane of Broad Ripple Avenue or 62nd street. Every first two cars were waived 

into the Flanner and Buchanan parking lot, used by the officers to conduct the 

sobriety check. There was lighting in the parking lot and the officers also used 

vehicles with flashers and reflective signs to alert drivers to what was 

happening. Accordingly, this element weighs in favor of its constitutionality. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 13 of 15

VI. Effectiveness

[22] Lastly, Gersdorff disputes the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. 

Lieutenant McCardia testified to the effectiveness of the checkpoint in that the 

ratio of people stopped were consistent “with the statistics that were presented.” 

(Tr. p. 24). 

[23] The Gerschoffer court, in analyzing the effectiveness of the checkpoint, observed 

that “advance publicity” of a sobriety checkpoint can “scare[] those who would 

drink and drive off the roads.” Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970. The court held 

that, given the “fairly low percentage” of OWI arrests1 obtained in that 

roadblock and the lack of evidence of advance publicity of the roadblock, it 

could not infer that that the checkpoint had “effectively deterred potential 

offenders.” Id. at 971. Here, out of eighteen vehicles that were stopped at the 

checkpoint, the police made two arrests. Compared to the two arrests out of 

seventy stops in Gerschoffer, the arrest rate here, while not a high percentage in 

itself, was significantly higher. 

[24] “Apprehension rates are not, however, the end of the question.” Gerschoffer, 

763 N.E.2d at 970. “[R]oadblocks can effectively deter OWI, such that even a 

modest arrest rate may simply reflect the fact that advance publicity scared 

those who would drink and drive off the roads.” Id. However, we also noted 

 

1 In Gerschoffer, the police stopped seventy out of 198 cars “funneled through the checkpoint” and made only 

two arrests for OWI. Gerschoffer, 763 N.E.2d at 970. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 14 of 15

that while the existence of the sobriety checkpoint was released to the media at 

large, here, there is no evidence that this information was disseminated to the 

general public. Without direct evidence showing that the checkpoint was 

actually publicized, it is more doubtful that the checkpoint had a deterrent 

effect. Therefore, while the arrest rate for operating while intoxicated was 

higher than that obtained in Gerschoffer, we cannot say that the effectiveness

factor weighs significantly in favor of the State. 

VII. Summary

[25] Gersdorff concedes two Gerschoffer factors—police discretion and degree of 

intrusion—but argues that the others were not satisfied. We disagree. There is 

substantial evidence in the record that the officers implemented a properly 

approved, neutral plan that included, among other things, advanced 

distribution of a media release to a significant number of local media outlets. 

Additionally, the record establishes that a narrow objective was established for 

the checkpoint, the timing/location was based on OWI arrest statistics, and the 

checkpoint was operated under safe conditions. The checkpoint was somewhat 

effective in deterring drunk driving. We hold that the sobriety checkpoint in 

this case, all things considered, was constitutional under Article I, Section 11 of 

the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

when it admitted the evidence discovered pursuant to Gersdorff’s stop at the 

sobriety checkpoint. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1608-CR-1785 | February 17, 2017 Page 15 of 15

CONCLUSION

[26] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in admitting the evidence seized following Gersdorff’s stop at a constitutionally 

reasonable sobriety checkpoint 

[27] Affirmed.

[28] Crone, J. and Altice, J. concur