Court Opinion

ID: 9505358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:04:06.027961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:24.629539
License: Public Domain

RUCKER, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that when Officer Young retained Finger's driver's license, what began as a consensual encounter evolved into an investigatory stop. However, I do not agree that at that point Officer Young had reasonable suspicion to detain Finger. Therefore I dissent.
The sequence of events in this case is important for a proper evaluation of *536whether Officer Young had reasonable suspicion to detain Finger. The majority contends that at the point Finger was detained, Officer Young knew the following: (1) Finger's car was reported as "suspicious"; (2) although Finger claimed the car was out of fuel, and someone had gone for gasoline, a gas station was around the corner and the fuel gauge indicated that there was one eighth of a tank of fuel remaining in the car; (8) Finger told other inconsistent stories during his conversation with Young; (4) there was a folded pocketknife in the car; and (5) Finger and his passenger were "acting nervous";
The majority correctly points out that item one is of little value. "A report that describes a suspicious car, but gives no further information is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion." Op. at 534. As for the remaining items the record shows that at the point Officer Young retained Finger's driver's license, he was aware only of items two and four: Finger was not actually out of gas, and a folded pocketknife was in the back seat of the car. Officer Young testified as follows:
Q. And why were you dispatched to the corner near the area of 56th and Meridian?
A. I was advised by our control operator that a concerned citizen had called in on a suspicious vehicle with two subjects sitting inside the vehicle at this corner of 56th and Meridian.
Q. What did you find when you responded?
A. On the-I believe it was the southeast corner of this intersection I found a large older model vehicle sitting on the south curb east of Meridian Street with two black male occupants.
Q. Okay ... what did you do when you got there?
A. I activated my emergency equipment-being that this is at an intersection and approached the vehicle to ascertain if I could offer any assistance.
Q. All right-who-did you with[,] anybody? speak
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who did you speak with?
A: I believe a Mr. Finger was sitting in the driver's position and I believe I spoke with him first.
Q. Okay. What did he tell you?
A. I believe my question to him was something to the effect of-you know-what-what was the situation-what was happening. He advised that the vehicle was out of gas. And that someone was going to retrieve gas for him.
Q. -All right, did he tell you who?
A. He just [said] a passerby.
Q. Okay. What did you do at that point?
A. I obtained identification, ran wanted checks, license checks-just as a standard procedure that we do.
Q. All right. Did anything come back when you did?
A. I-I don't believe there was any wanted information. And I don't recall the-the license status. I would have to check my notes.
Q. Okay. So what did you do after you ran their checks to see if there were any warrants out for them?
A. I returned to the vehicle to speak further with them, ask if-if there was anything I could help them with-where they were going-where they were coming from-just general conversation.
R. at 6-7. It was at this point Officer Young testified, "The conversation that I recall ... somewhat deviated] from what they had originally stated. The stories they were giving weren't quite adding up. I don't-I do not recall the exact conversation that was-ensued." Id. at 9. The *537record then shows that two more Butler University Police Officers arrived on the scene, followed shortly by officers of the Indianapolis Police Department. By then, the officers had overheard a call of a robbery about a block away. Because of the alleged inconsistency in the stories and the report of the robbery, the officers decided to detain Finger and his passenger. The following testimony by Officer Young is instructive:
Q. Okay, do you recall whether IPD arrived before you decided that you wanted to detain these persons because of the robbery or after?
A. It was within a close proximity of time. I'm-I believe it was-I believe we detained them before they arrived.
Q. Okay ...
A. But it was within a close proximity of time.
Q. Is there any other reason that you decided to detain these persons besides the fact that their stories were inconsistent and the proximity and the closeness of the call?
A. Well, they weren't going anywhere. They stated they were out of gas.
Id. at 11.
Contrary to the majority's recitation of facts, Officer Young's testimony makes clear that Finger telling inconsistent stories and Finger and his passenger "acting nervous" occurred after Finger had been deprived of his driver's license, and thus after he had already been detained for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. That leaves only two facts known to Officer Young at the time Finger was detained that could support the notion that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot: (1) Finger lied about being out of gas, and (2) Young observed a folded pocketknife in the back seat of the car. Nothing in this record suggests that the pocketknife was contraband or that it had been used in the commission of a crime. As for Finger's lack of truthfulness, although a deceptive response may contribute to reasonable suspicion of eriminal activity, see United States v. Burton, 288 F.3d 91, 105 (3d Cir.2002), it is not enough standing alone. Because no reasonable suspicion existed in this case, Officer Young's investigatory stop was illegal. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court denying Finger's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop should be reversed.