Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2399 | July 17, 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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Donald J. Frew

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

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 17, 2020

Court of Appeals Case 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 17, 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 Level 6 felony, and was 

adjudicated as an 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 uncovering a handgun and illegal drugs. 

We address the following threshold issue: whether McClendon has standing 

under the Fourth Amendment or Article I, section 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 the registered owner of the Nissan. Id. at 142. At 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 Code § 35-48-4-10.5 (repealed July 1, 2019). 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 17, 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 an

“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 16, 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: possession 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 17, 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 89-94. 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 lookalike substance; he was also adjudicated as an habitual 

offender. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 15, 137-38, 166. On September 10, 2019, 

McClendon was sentenced to an aggregate term of eighteen years, with sixteen 

years executed. Id. at 164-67. McClendon now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] McClendon contends that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the 

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

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 obtained 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 17, 2020 Page 5 of 6

[8] To raise a challenge under Article I, section 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 search. Belcher owned the 

Nissan, and McClendon was a mere passenger. Tr. Vol. 2 at 142. McClendon 

concedes both facts. See Appellant’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 not even contended he 

had a possessory interest in the bag containing the handgun and illegal drugs. 

Accordingly, McClendon lacks 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 17, 2020 Page 6 of 6