Opinion ID: 2170831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Items Recovered After Police Chase

Text: Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and allowing into evidence, over objection, State's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Appellant claims that these items were seized after he was stopped by police officers acting without probable cause. However, the objection at trial to the admissibility of these items was made on the basis that a proper chain of custody had not been established, and on appeal a party is restricted to claims within the scope of a proper trial objection. Other objections, such as the one here based upon the absence of probable cause, are considered not properly made and preserved. Daniel v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1157; Burton v. State (1988), 526 N.E.2d 1163. If this issue had been properly raised and preserved, the result on appeal would be the same. Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer would justify a belief by a reasonable person that a crime has been committed by the suspect. DiTommaso v. State (1991), Ind., 566 N.E.2d 538; Cornett v. State (1989), Ind., 536 N.E.2d 501. In the instant case, Officer Smith testified that he stopped appellant's vehicle in order to issue a citation for making a right turn without using a turn signal, which is a traffic violation under Indiana law. See I.C. 9-4-1-78, repealed by P.L. 2-1991 (current version at I.C. X-XX-X-XX); I.C. X-X-X-XXX.1, repealed by P.L. 2-1991 (current version at I.C. X-XX-X-XX). Appellant's violation of this statute is sufficient grounds for stopping him. In addition, the fact that appellant fled from Officer Smith after the lawful stop was probable cause to arrest him and recover the abandoned items. Fleeing a law enforcement officer is a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. XX-XX-X-X(a)(3), and an officer is permitted to make a warrantless arrest if a misdemeanor is committed in his presence. Cornett, 536 N.E.2d 501; Brown v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1109. The trial court did not err in admitting State's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.