Court Opinion

ID: 9772473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:19:12.444963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:44.758881
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result because I agree that without the testimony of Agent Rodriguez, we are left to wonder what triggered his initial approach to Yanez other than the “loud” talking Yanez allegedly was engaged in with his female companion. Without more, the State fails in its burden as the majority describes. However, I part company with the analysis regarding “reasonableness” and the “seizure” of Ya-nez.
If this case solely involved Officer Hum-erickhouse and her discovery of marijuana on Yanez’s person, we would have a much different case. It doesn’t, and thus this result. Generally, police officers are not prohibited, under either the United States or Indiana Constitutions, from approaching persons in public places and asking them questions. See Powell v. State, 912 N.E.2d 858, 862-63 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). Where an encounter such as this is “consensual,” the officer has not seized anyone and there are no constitutional implications. Id. Moreover, when Officer Humer-ickhouse approached Yanez, she noticed that he smelled “strongly” of burnt marijuana. Tr. p. 24. This certainly would have warranted further investigation into whether Yanez possessed marijuana, possibly even including a search of his person. See Edmond v. State, 951 N.E.2d 585, 591 (Ind.Ct.App.2011).
However, Yanez already was speaking with Agent Rodriguez when she decided to approach Yanez; the question is whether Agent Rodriguez had seized him.1 Cir*534cumstances that might indicate a seizure may include the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the suspect by an officer, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer’s request might be compelled. Powell, 912 N.E.2d at 860 (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)). Without Agent Rodriguez’s testimony, it is very difficult to assess whether any of these circumstances existed,2 whether he had seized Yanez, and, thus, whether Yanez continued to be seized when Officer Humerickhouse approached. We know nothing directly of what Agent Rodriguez said to Yanez. Even if Yanez had been seized, it would not necessarily have been an illegal seizure if Agent Rodriguez possessed reasonable suspicion or probable cause of wrongdoing to support the seizure. See id. at 859. Without Agent Rodriguez’s testimony, we cannot assess that question.
As the proponent of evidence recovered during a warrantless search, it was the State’s burden to prove that that search was constitutional. See Willis v. State, 780 N.E.2d 428, 428 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Although we can speculate that Yanez’s initial encounter with Agent Rodriguez might have been “consensual,” as that word is defined by case law, I believe it was the State’s burden to establish that it was. Without Agent Rodriguez’s testimony, the State failed to meet that burden. Thus, I concur in result.

. I note that although Agent Rodriguez is a federal law enforcement official, Indiana seems to adhere to the view that the protections of the Indiana Constitution apply to *534actions of federal officials with respect to state criminal prosecutions. See Moran v. State, 644 N.E.2d 536, 538-39 (Ind.1994), abrogated on other grounds by Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind.2005).

. Officer Humerickhouse testified that there were ''several” officers in the vicinity where Yanez was being questioned, but less than five. Tr. p. 22.