Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 1 of 6



### 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.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Donald J. Frew Fort Wayne, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mortimer H. McClendon , Appellant

- Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee

- Plaintiff

. July 1 7 , 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 19A

- CR

- 2399 Appeal from the Allen Superior Court The Honorable David M. Zent, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05

- 1808

- F4

- 64

Kirsch , Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 2 of 6

[1] Mortimer H. McClendon (“McClendon”) was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon , 1 a Level 4 felony, and dealing in a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance , 2 a Leve l 6 felony , and was adjudicated as a n habitual offender

. 3 On appeal, McClendon argues that a police detective violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I , section 11 of the Indiana Constitution when the detective conducted an inventory search of the car in which McClendon rode as a passenger, with the search uncover ing a handgun an d illegal drugs. W e address the following threshold issue : whether McClendon ha s s tanding under the Fourth Amendment or Article I , s ection 11 to challenge the inventory search.

[2] We affirm. 

### Facts and Procedural History
[3] In the early hours of August 13, 2018, Rodney Belcher (“Belcher”), McClendon’s friend, gave McClendon a ride in Belcher’s Nissan Maxima (“the Nissan”) to take McClendon to his girlfriend’s residence. Tr. Vol. 2 at 189

- 91. McClendon was carrying a bag when he entered the Nissan. Id . at 191

. Belcher was th e registered owner of the Nissan. Id . at 142. A t approximately

1 See Ind. Code § 35

- 47

- 4

- 5(c)

. 2 See Ind. Code § 35

- 48

- 4

- 10.5 (repealed July 1, 2019). 3 See Ind. Code § 35

- 50

- 2

- 8

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 3 of 6

2:41 a.m., Fort Wayne Police Department (“FWPD”) Detective Gavin Dambra (“Detective Dambra”) observed that the license plate light of the Nissan was not working

. Id

. at 139. Once McClendon and Belcher noticed that Detective Dambra was trailing them , McClendon grabbed his bag and was able to place it in the trunk of the Nissan through the “ pass through, ” which provided direct access to the trunk

. Id . at 191, 197

. Detective Dambra stopped the Nissan. Id

. 139

- 40.

[4] Belcher was unable to provide insurance information on the Nissan , so Detective Dambra called for a tow truck to impound Belcher’s vehicle

. Id . at 142

- 44. Before the tow truck arrived, Detective Dambra conducted a n “administrative” inventory search of the Nissan pursuant to FWPD procedures , uncovering the bag that McClendon had placed in the trunk

. Id . at 144

- 47. The bag contained a semiautomatic 9

- millimeter handgun; two large plastic bags that contained the synthetic drug “Spice”; a black scale; and a box of clear sandwich baggies , which collectively contained 377.11 grams of Fluoro ADB, a controlled substance

. Id . at 148

- 49, 207; Tr. Vol. 3 at 7

.
[5] On August 1 6 , 2018, the State charged McClendon with Count I: unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; Count II: dealing in a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance; Count III: posse ssion of a synthetic drug or a synthetic drug lookalike substance ; Count IV: invasion of privacy ; and Count V: criminal mischief

. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 24

- 29 , 30

- 33

. On September 24, 2018, the State filed a notice of intention to seek a habitual offender enhancement

. Id . at 6, 57

- 58.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 4 of 6

[6] On March 29, 2019, McClendon filed a motion to suppress the evidence found inside of the Nissan , which the trial court denied the next day. Id . at 89

- 9 4

. On June 7, 2019, McClendon filed a motion for certification of interlocutory order and for stay of proceedings pending appeal, which the trial court denied on June 25, 2019

. Id . at 102

- 03

. On July 26, 2019, the State filed a motion to dismiss counts III, IV, and V, which the trial court granted

. Id . at 107

- 08. The two
- day jury trial commenced on July 30, 2019

. Tr. Vol. 2 at 2. Following the proceedings, on August 2, 2019, McClendon was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and dealing in a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lo okalike substance ; he was also adjudicated as a n habitual offender

. Appellant ’

s App. Vol. II at 1 5 , 137

- 38, 166. On September 10, 2019, McClendon was sentenced to an aggregate term of eighteen years , with sixteen years executed

. Id . at 164

- 6 7

. McClendon now appeals.



### Discussion and Decision
[7] McClendon contends that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I , s ection 11 of the Indiana Constitu tion were violated by the inventory search of Belcher’s Nissan. A person’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure are personal. Minnesota v. Carter , 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998)

. To raise a challenge under the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place that is searched, id ., or show that government obtain ed information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area. United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 407 (2012)

.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 5 of 6

[8] To raise a challenge under Article I , s ection 11 , a defendant “must establish ownership, control, possession, or interest in the premises searched.” Barker v. State , 96 N.E.3d 638, 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) , trans. denied

. “Many search and seizure issues are resolved in the same manner under both the Indiana and Federal Constitutions.” Campos v. State , 885 N.E.2d 590, 596 (Ind. 2008)

. “[F]ederal precedent addressing standing of a passenger asserting an interest in a searched vehicle is equally applicable under the Indiana Constitution.” Id . at 598

. Passengers in a car driven by the owner do not have standing to challenge a search of the car. Id.

[9] Here, McClendon lacks standing under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 11 to challenge the inventory sear ch. Belcher owned the Nissan , and McClendon was a mere passenger. Tr. Vol. 2 at 142. McClendon concedes both facts. See Ap pellant’s Br. at 15. Therefore, McClendon lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Nissan, and he failed to demonstrate that he had a possessory interest in the Nissan. See Carter , 525 U.S. at 88 ; Barker , 96 N.E.3d at 647 . Similarly, McClendon has n ot even contended he had a possessory interest in the bag containing the handgun and illegal drugs. Accord ingly, McClendon lack s standing to challenge the propriety of the inventory search under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 11

. See Campos , 885 N.E.2d at 598

.
[10] Affirmed. Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A

- CR

- 2399 | July 1 7 , 2020 Page 6 of 6