Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

Barbara Simmons

Oldenburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Lorenzo Adams,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 28, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1509-CR-1334

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Carol Ann Terzo, 

Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G10-1503-CM-8679

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Lorenzo Adams appeals his conviction for carrying a handgun without a 

license, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Adams raises a 

single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion 

when it admitted into evidence a handgun recovered from his person after a 

Terry stop. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 9, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) 

Officer Dominic Smith received a radio dispatch concerning a tip that a resident 

of the Meadowlark Apartment complex (“Meadowlark”) had seen a “person

with a gun” in the complex. Tr. at 7. The resident, who identified herself as 

Edith Williams to the 9-1-1 operator, described the person as having a “[w]hite 

jacket with red stripes.” Id. at 7. No further description of the suspect was 

provided by Williams.

[3] Meadowlark is located in Indianapolis in an area with a “very high” level of 

crime. Id. at 6. Meadowlark, a federally-subsidized complex, has a “no[-]gun 

policy,” and the IMPD is permitted to “trespass anybody from the apartment 

complex that the apartment complex wants [the IMPD] to trespass.” Id. at 6. 

At the time of the dispatch to Meadowlark on March 9, Officer Smith was 

aware of an incident on March 7, when shots had been fired at Meadowlark.

[4] Two to three minutes after receiving the dispatch, Officer Smith arrived on the 

scene, and he saw a man wearing a white jacket with red stripes, later identified 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 3 of 7

as Adams, standing on a sidewalk in the apartment complex. Because Officer 

Smith had reason to believe that Adams had a gun, Officer Smith drew his gun 

and approached Adams, who had his hands in his jacket pockets. Officer Smith 

instructed Adams to “get his hands up.” Id at 8. Upon hearing that command, 

Adams began to reach “back a little bit . . . towards his right pocket” before 

complying and raising his hands. Id. at 9. After placing Adams in handcuffs, 

Officer Smith found a .22 caliber handgun on Adams’ person. Adams admitted 

that he did not have a gun permit.

[5] The State charged Adams with carrying a gun without a license, as a Class A 

misdemeanor. During a bench trial, Adams moved to suppress the evidence of 

the handgun, but the trial court denied that motion and found Adams guilty as 

charged. The trial court sentenced Adams to 365 days with 341 days suspended 

and twenty-four days credit. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Adams asserts that the trial court erred when it permitted the State to introduce 

the handgun into evidence. Initially, we address Adams’ characterization of 

Williams as an “anonymous tipster” throughout his brief on appeal. It is 

undisputed that Williams gave her name to the 9-1-1 operator when she called 

to report the man with a gun in Meadowlark. Accordingly, depending on the 

totality of the circumstances of her tip, Williams may be considered a 

“concerned citizen.” As our supreme court has explained,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 4 of 7

[a concerned citizen tip] is made up of people who may have 

been victims of crime or have witnessed a crime. [Pawloski v. 

State, 269 Ind. 350, 380 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (1978)]. These 

individuals generally come forward with information out of a 

spirit of good citizenship and a desire to help law enforcement. 

Id. Some jurisdictions have therefore held informants of this type 

are considered more reliable. Id. In Kellems [v. State, 842 N.E.2d 

352 (Ind. 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 849 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.

2006)], we again reaffirmed our belief that there “may well be 

great indicia of reliability in the report of the ‘concerned citizen’ 

as distinguished from the ‘professional informant’—though again 

the totality of the circumstances controls.” 842 N.E.2d at 356.

These concerned citizens are usually one-time informants, and 

no basis exists from prior contacts to determine their reliability, 

such as in the case of an undercover police informant. Kellems, 

842 N.E.2d at 356.

State v. Renzulli, 958 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 2011).

[7] Here, again, Williams identified herself to the 9-1-1 operator when she called in 

the tip. Williams described a person wearing a distinctive jacket and armed 

with a gun in Meadowlark in violation of the no-gun policy. Officer Smith 

arrived at the scene approximately two or three minutes after Williams’ call and 

found Adams, who was wearing a jacket matching the description given by 

Williams. We hold that, under the totality of the circumstances, Williams was 

a concerned citizen tipster.

[8] Adams’ sole contention on appeal is that Officer Smith did not have reasonable 

suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana 

Constitution. Both of those constitutional provisions protect citizens from 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 5 of 7

unreasonable searches and seizures. See Hathaway v. State, 906 N.E.2d 941, 

944-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Generally, a search warrant is a 

prerequisite to a constitutionally proper search and seizure. Halsema v. State, 

823 N.E.2d 668, 676 (Ind. 2005). When a search or seizure is conducted 

without a warrant, the State bears the burden of proving that an exception to 

the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search or seizure. Id.

[9] However, in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968), the United States Supreme 

Court held that an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, 

conduct a brief investigatory stop when, based on a totality of the 

circumstances, the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal 

activity is afoot. Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind. 2006). An 

investigatory stop allows a police officer to “temporarily freeze the situation in 

order to make an investigative inquiry.” Johnson v. State, 766 N.E.2d 426, 429 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. A Terry stop is a lesser intrusion on the 

person than an arrest and may include a request to see identification and 

inquiry necessary to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions. Id. (citing Hiibel 

v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177, 185-89 (2004)). Reasonable 

suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for making a stop, 

something more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but less than the 

level of suspicion required for probable cause. Wilson v. State, 670 N.E.2d 27, 

29 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)).

Indiana has adopted the Terry rationale in determining the legality of an 

investigatory stop under Article 1, Section 11. Id. Tips from concerned citizens 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 6 of 7

may justify a Terry stop. See Kellems, 842 N.E.2d at 355. Still, the test for 

determining the validity of a Terry stop is the totality of the circumstances 

before the officers. Id. at 356. 

[10] Based on the totality of the circumstances here, the investigating officer had a 

reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Officer Smith

responded to a 9-1-1 call from Williams, a concerned citizen, and arrived at the 

scene within two or three minutes. Meadowlark is located in a high-crime area 

of Indianapolis. According to Williams, a person wearing a white jacket with 

red stripes was at Meadowlark and had a gun. Officer Smith knew that shots 

had been fired at Meadowlark only two days prior, and he knew that

Meadowlark had a no-gun policy. As soon as Officer Smith arrived, he drew 

his weapon for officer safety “due to the nature of the call” and “previous 

incidents in the area.” Tr. at 8. Officer Smith then approached Adams and told 

him to put his hands in the air. Instead of complying with the command, 

Adams reached for his back pocket. Officer Smith repeated the command, and 

Adams complied. Officer Smith placed Adams in handcuffs and found a 

handgun on Adams’ person.

[11] Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances known to Officer Smith at 

the time he detained Adams, we conclude that Officer Smith had a reasonable 

and articulable suspicion that Adams may have been involved in criminal 

activity. Accordingly, Officer Smith’s Terry stop of Adams did not violate 

Adams’ Fourth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Billingsley v. State, 980 N.E.2d 402, 

411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. For the same reasons, Adams’ claim 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1509-CR-1334| April 28, 2016 Page 7 of 7

under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution must fail. See id. Officer 

Smith’s Terry stop of Adams was not contrary to law, and the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence seized pursuant to that stop.

[12] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.