Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=18A-CR-1633%20&s=IN&d=128302
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:18:23+00:00

Document:
1 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1(e). 2 We held oral argument in this case on February 7, 2019, at Seymour High School. We thank the school for its hospitality and counsel for their advocacy. 3 Officer Moore testified that he detained Smith at the corner of Market and Delaware Streets, Tr. at 6, because he had probable cause to believe there was a gun in the vehicle “based on the gray vehicle and the run that came out stating that there was [sic] shots fired in the area…,” id. at 14. 4 At trial, the State did not present a recording or transcript of the 9-1-1 call from the anonymous source.
observed a vehicle matching the description he had received from dispatch.
in the driver’s seat of the vehicle and there were two passengers.
not have a license for it. The police arrested Smith.
5 Officer Moore testified that the “shots-fired run” came out at 1:15 a.m. and there were “quite a few vehicles” and people “on the street” at 1:15 a.m. Tr. at 16-17. 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
N.E.2d 252, 259 (Ind. 2013).
In ruling on admissibility following the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court considers the foundational evidence presented at trial. [Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38,] 40 n.1 (Ind. 2014)]. It also considers the evidence from the suppression hearing that is favorable to the defendant only to the extent it is uncontradicted at trial. Id. Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion and reverse only if a ruling is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Clark, 994 N.E.2d at 260. But the ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo. McIlquham v. State, 10 N.E.3d 506, 511 (Ind. 2014).
Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).
separately analyzed. Marshall v. State, No. 18S-CR-00464, slip op. at 5-6 (Ind.
activity ‘may be afoot.’” Edmond v. State, 951 N.E.2d 585, 588 (Ind. Ct. App.
7 Evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure is inadmissible. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Smith only challenges the constitutionality of the initial stop, not the subsequent search.
which justified it at its inception, Terry, 392 U.S. at 18-19.
accurate information identifying the suspect. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S.
to identify the suspect); Grayson v. State, 52 N.E.3d 24, 29-30 (Ind. Ct. App.
criminal activity.” Id. at 272; see also Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir.
8 In Berry v. State, 766 N.E.2d 805, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, we determined that there were insufficient indicia of reliability of an anonymous tip where the tipster reported witnessing a person waving a gun around in public but did not provide any predictions of the defendant’s future behavior. However, we note that that case was decided before Navarette.
Terry stop of Smith’s vehicle at its inception.
circumstances which justified the stop at its inception. Terry, 392 U.S. at 18-19.
totality of the circumstances. Wilson v. State, 96 N.E.3d 655, 658 (Ind. Ct. App.
2018) (citing Reinhart v. State, 930 N.E.2d 42, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)), trans.
915 F.3d 431, 2019 WL 473381, *3 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2019) (quoting Howell v.
with a weapon), trans. denied.
stop into an arrest. Vaccaro, 2019 WL 473381, at *1, 3.
particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” State v.
Renzulli, 958 N.E.2d 1143, 1147 (Ind. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted).
the location where the vehicle was found soon after the tip was given. Id.
the general public”), trans. denied.
warranting an immediate response by law enforcement to ensure public safety.

References: § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.