Court Opinion

ID: 9897331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:15.488413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:42.778512
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Jul 26 2023, 8:56 am

                                                                           CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Sarah Medlin                                               Theodore E. Rokita
Marion County Public Defender Agency                       Indiana Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Indianapolis, Indiana
                                                           Robert Martin Yoke
                                                           Jodi Kathryn Stein
                                                           Deputy Attorneys General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Philip D. Hutson, Jr.,                                     July 26, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CR-2240
        v.                                                 Interlocutory Appeal from the
                                                           Marion County Superior Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Jennifer Harrison, Judge
                                                           The Honorable
                                                           Steven Rubick, Magistrate
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           49D20-2106-F4-020153

                                    Opinion by Judge May
                                Judges Riley and Bailey concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023                              Page 1 of 12
[1]   Philip D. Hutson, Jr. (“Hutson”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion

      to suppress evidence found during a Terry 1 stop. Hutson raises two issues on

      appeal, which we restate as:

                 Whether a police officer’s stop of Hutson as he was walking along the

                 shoulder of Interstate 465 (“I-465”) and the subsequent seizure of

                 Hutson’s handgun violated his rights under either:

                 1. the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or

                 2. Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

      We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History                                    2

[2]   Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on June 28, 2021, Trooper Scott Probasco of the

      Indiana State Police received a dispatch regarding an individual walking along

      I-465 near the 17-mile marker. Trooper Probasco responded to the area in his

      police car, and he encountered Hutson walking along the shoulder of the

      roadway. Trooper Probasco asked Hutson why he was walking on the

      interstate. Hutson said his car had run out of gas, and he was walking back to

      1
          Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).
      2
       We heard oral argument in this case on June 15, 2023, at Trine University in Angola, Indiana. We thank
      Trine University’s faculty and staff for their hospitality and the participants in Hoosier Boy’s State for their
      attendance. We also commend counsel for their advocacy.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023                                     Page 2 of 12
      his vehicle. He was carrying a plastic container 3 and not wearing a shirt.

      Trooper Probasco saw what appeared to be the grip of a handgun sticking out

      of Hutson’s waistband. Trooper Probasco asked Hutson if he had a handgun

      on him, and Hutson “started to appear nervous and asked if he was going to

      jail[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 10.) Trooper Probasco asked Hutson to turn around and

      then handcuffed him. Trooper Probasco removed a .38 caliber Smith &

      Wesson handgun from Hutson’s waistband and asked for Hutson’s name and

      date of birth. Trooper Probasco then “ran Mr. Hutson through Indiana State

      Police dispatch.” (Id.) While Trooper Probasco was waiting to hear the return

      from dispatch, Hutson admitted he had some past felony convictions. Trooper

      Probasco then read Hutson his rights pursuant to Miranda 4 and asked Hutson

      about his criminal history. Trooper Probasco transported Hutson to a nearby

      gas station and a “jail van” then took Hutson to the Marion County Jail. (Id. at

      11.)

[3]   On June 30, 2021, the State charged Hutson with Level 4 felony unlawful

      possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.5 On July 5, 2022, Hutson

      filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during Trooper Probasco’s stop of

      him. Hutson asserted Trooper Probasco’s actions violated his rights under both

      3
       Trooper Probasco described the container as “a radiator—like a—like a coolant or radiator fluid . . .
      container.” (Tr. Vol. II at 14.)
      4
          Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), reh’g denied.
      5
          Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023                                 Page 3 of 12
      the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section

      11 of the Indiana Constitution.

[4]   On July 11, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Hutson’s motion. Trooper

      Probasco testified at the hearing that he stopped Hutson because walking along

      I-465 is a traffic infraction. Trooper Probasco also explained that when he

      encounters someone walking along the interstate, pursuant to department

      policy, he will ask for the person’s identification, place the person in handcuffs

      before transporting the person, and then drive the person to a location off the

      interstate. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs, and the trial court denied

      Hutson’s motion to suppress on August 2, 2022. Hutson moved to certify the

      order for interlocutory appeal, and the trial court granted Hutson’s motion. We

      accepted jurisdiction over the appeal on October 14, 2022.

      Discussion and Decision
[5]   Hutson appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Our standard

      of review in this situation is well-settled:

              We review a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to
              suppress deferentially, construing conflicting evidence in the light
              most favorable to the ruling, but we will also consider any
              substantial and uncontested evidence favorable to the defendant.
              We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly
              erroneous, and we will not reweigh the evidence. When the trial
              court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress concerns the
              constitutionality of a search or seizure, however, it presents a
              question of law, and we address that question de novo.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023            Page 4 of 12
      Rutledge v. State, 28 N.E.3d 281, 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal citations

      omitted).

      1. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
[6]   The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

              The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
              papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
              shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon
              probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
              particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
              or things to be seized.

      “The Amendment protects citizens from search or seizure absent a warrant

      supported by probable cause.” Tigner v. State, 142 N.E.3d 1064, 1068 (Ind. Ct.

      App. 2020). However, one exception to the warrant requirement is the Terry

      stop. Glasgow v. State, 99 N.E.3d 251, 257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). This exception

      “permits a police officer to stop and detain a person for investigative purposes if

      the officer has a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that

      criminal activity ‘may be afoot[,]’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.”

      Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Terry v.

      Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884 (1968)) (brackets in Parker).

      1.1 Stop of Hutson

[7]   Hutson initially contends Trooper Probasco’s stop of him was improper under

      Terry because Hutson’s “presence on the shoulder of I-465 was not evidence of

      criminal activity.” (Appellant’s Br. at 6.) The State counters that Trooper

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023            Page 5 of 12
      Probasco constitutionally stopped Hutson when Trooper Probasco observed

      Hutson commit a Class C infraction by walking along the shoulder of I-465. “If

      an officer observes a driver commit a traffic violation, he has probable cause—

      and thus also the lesser included reasonable suspicion—to stop that driver.”

      State v. Keck, 4 N.E.3d 1180, 1184 (Ind. 2014). Trooper Probasco testified that

      along I-465 “[t]here are marked signs on the roadway stating no—no standing,

      parking, walking on the interstate[.]” (Tr. Vol. II at 19.) Indiana Code section

      9-21-8-20 states:

              The Indiana department of transportation may by resolution or
              order entered in its minutes, and local authorities may by
              ordinance, with respect to any freeway or interstate highway
              system under their respective jurisdictions, prohibit the use of a
              highway by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized traffic
              or by a person operating a motor driven cycle. The Indiana
              department of transportation or the local authority adopting a
              prohibiting regulation shall erect and maintain official signs on
              the freeway or interstate highway system on which the
              regulations are applicable. If signs are erected, a person may not
              disobey the restrictions stated on the signs.

      105 IAC 9-1-2(12) explains: “Pedestrians, motorized bicycles, bicycles, and

      other nonmotorized traffic shall be prohibited from enumerated highways: … I-

      465[.]” Indiana Code section 9-21-8-49(a) provides that a person who violates

      Indiana Code section 9-21-8-20 commits a Class C infraction.

[8]   Hutson notes that Indiana Code section 9-21-17-13 states: “If a sidewalk is not

      available, a pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a

      shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.” However, the

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023         Page 6 of 12
      traffic code differentiates between a “highway” and an “interstate highway.”

      Indiana Code section 9-13-2-85 explains: “‘Interstate highway’ means a

      highway that is a part of the national system of interstate and defense highways

      (23 U.S.C. as in effect January 1, 1991).” Indiana Code 9-13-2-73 provides:

      “‘Highway’ or ‘street’ means the entire width between the boundary lines of

      every publicly maintained way when any part of the way is open to the use of

      the public for purposes of vehicular travel in Indiana. The term includes an

      alley in a city or town.” Thus, while Indiana Code section 9-21-17-13 allows a

      pedestrian to walk along the shoulder of other roadways, it does not allow a

      pedestrian to walk along the shoulder of an interstate highway.

[9]   Hutson also emphasizes that he was walking along the shoulder of I-465 rather

      than in the traveling portion of the roadway, but this distinction is not

      significant. The United States Code’s definition of “highway” includes “a

      portion of any interstate.” 23 U.S.C. § 101(11)(c). Moreover, Indiana Code

      section 9-21-17-13 implicitly recognizes the shoulder as part of the street

      because it directs “a pedestrian walking along and upon a highway” to “walk

      only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.”

      Therefore, even though Hutson was walking along the shoulder of the interstate

      rather than in the middle of it, Trooper Probasco had the requisite reasonable

      suspicion to stop him for committing the traffic infraction of walking along the

      interstate. Based thereon, we conclude Trooper Probasco’s stop of Hutson did

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023            Page 7 of 12
       not violate Hutson’s Fourth Amendment rights. 6 See Pridemore v. State, 71

       N.E.3d 70, 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (holding officers conducted lawful traffic

       stop based on reasonable suspicion motorist committed a traffic infraction by

       driving outside the right-hand lane).

       1.2 Seizure of Hutson’s Gun

[10]   Second, Hutson contends Trooper Probasco violated his Fourth Amendment

       rights when Trooper Probasco “handcuffed him and searched his person based

       solely on the belief that Hutson was armed and nervous.” (Appellant’s Br. at

       9.) Hutson likens himself to the defendant in Pinner v. State, 74 N.E.3d 226

       (Ind. 2017). In Pinner, our Indiana Supreme Court held a “bare boned tip” that

       an individual possessed a handgun and the individual’s “rocking back and

       forth” and “wringing” his hands when questioned by police did not give rise to

       reasonable suspicion. Id. at 232. The Court explained that it is not per se

       illegal to possess a gun, and the officers did not have any reason to believe

       Pinner’s possession of a gun was in violation of Indiana law. Id. The Court

       also noted many people will exhibit signs of nervousness, regardless of their

       actual guilt or innocence, when confronted by law enforcement. Id. at 233.

       Hutson points out that Trooper Probasco did not testify he feared for his safety

       6
         In his reply brief, Hutson asserts that “[i]f walking on the shoulder of I-465 is an infraction, so too is
       ‘stopping, standing, or parking,’ leaving Hoosiers whose vehicles become disabled on I-465 with no
       permissible conduct.” (Appellant’s Reply Br. at 4.) However, if an officer tickets a motorist for stopping,
       standing, or parking on the shoulder of the interstate after the motorist’s vehicle becomes disabled, then the
       motorist may raise necessity as an affirmative defense at trial. See Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387, 389-90 (Ind.
       Ct. App. 1994) (holding defense of necessity is recognized in Indiana).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023                                    Page 8 of 12
       when he saw the grip of a handgun sticking out of Hutson’s waistband. Hutson

       also notes he “made no attempt to hide his gun or furtive movements that

       would suggest he was drawing a weapon.” (Appellant’s Br. at 10.)

[11]   However, a “‘search’ involves an exploratory investigation, prying into hidden

       places, or a looking for or seeking out,” Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 572

       (Ind. 2006), and none of that occurred here. Trooper Probasco observed the

       gun in plain view, and merely observing something in plain view is not a

       search. See Avant v. State, 528 N.E.2d 74, 76 (Ind. 1988) (because officer saw

       item in plain view, its discovery was not the product of a search within the

       meaning of the Fourth Amendment).

[12]   After seeing the handgun, Trooper Probasco handcuffed Hutson and removed

       the firearm from his waistband. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the United States

       Supreme Court stated: “We think it too plain for argument that the State’s

       proffered justification—the safety of the officer—is both legitimate and

       weighty.” 454 U.S. 106, 110, 98 S. Ct. 330, 333 (1977). Due to this compelling

       interest, “[t]he Fourth Amendment allows privacy interests protected by the

       Fourth Amendment to be balanced against the interests of officer safety.”

       Wilson v. State, 745 N.E.2d 789, 792 (Ind. 2001). For instance, “when an officer

       places a person into a patrol car that will be occupied by the officer or other

       persons, there is a significantly heightened risk of substantial danger to those in

       the car in the event the detainee is armed.” Id. Thus, “it is generally reasonable

       for a prudent officer to pat-down persons placed in his patrol car, even absent a

       belief of dangerousness particularized to the specific detainee.” Id. However,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023           Page 9 of 12
       the officer’s decision to place the person in his police car must be reasonable.

       Id. Hutson was on the shoulder of I-465 at 2:00 a.m., and Trooper Probasco

       needed to place Hutson into his police cruiser to safely remove him from the

       interstate. Thus, it was reasonable for Trooper Probasco to remove Hutson’s

       gun from his waistband, and he did not violate Hutson’s Fourth Amendment

       rights by doing so. See Richey v. State, 210 N.E.3d 329, 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)

       (officer’s search of defendant before placing defendant in police vehicle was

       necessary for officer safety and did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment

       rights), reh’g denied.

       2. Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution
[13]   Hutson also challenges Trooper Probasco’s stop and seizure of his handgun

       under the Indiana Constitution. While the language of Article 1, Section 11 of

       the Indiana Constitution mirrors the Fourth Amendment, we interpret Article

       1, Section 11 independently. Hardin v. State, 148 N.E.3d 932, 941 (Ind. 2020),

       cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2468 (2021). Under the Indiana Constitution, we assess

       the reasonableness of a search or seizure by looking at the totality of the

       circumstances. Id. While other considerations may impact our analysis, we

       balance three factors when examining the reasonableness of a search or seizure:

       “1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation has

       occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes

       on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.”

       Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. 2005).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023         Page 10 of 12
       2.1 Stop of Hutson

[14]   Hutson reasserts his argument that walking on the shoulder of I-465 is not a

       traffic infraction, and therefore, Hutson contends Trooper Probasco did not

       have valid suspicion of a violation of law to initiate the stop. However, as

       explained above, walking along I-465 is a traffic infraction. Trooper Probasco

       observed Hutson commit a traffic infraction and enforcing the traffic laws is a

       legitimate law enforcement need. See Marshall v. State, 117 N.E.3d 1254, 1262

       (Ind. 2019) (“law enforcement has at least a legitimate, if not a compelling,

       need to enforce traffic-safety laws”). Trooper Probasco also needed to remove

       Hutson from the interstate for Hutson’s own safety given that it was dark and

       that vehicles travel at a high rate of speed on the interstate highway. Moreover,

       a traffic stop is a minimal intrusion. See id. (traffic stop for speeding “amounted

       to a small intrusion on Marshall’s ordinary activities”). Therefore, Trooper

       Probasco’s stop of Hutson did not violate his rights under the Indiana

       Constitution. See Doctor v. State, 57 N.E.3d 846, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)

       (holding officers did not violate the defendant’s rights under Indiana

       Constitution when they initiated a stop after observing a traffic violation).

       2.2 Seizure of Hutson’s Gun

[15]   Hutson asserts the seizure of his handgun was not reasonable under the totality

       of the circumstances. However, Trooper Probasco’s suspicion that Hutson was

       armed was high when he observed the grip of a handgun sticking out of

       Hutson’s waistband. We agree with the State’s assertion that “[s]eizing a

       weapon in plain view is less intrusive than a pat-down search,” (Appellee’s Br.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023         Page 11 of 12
       at 18), and a pat-down search is a limited intrusion on an individual’s normal

       activities. See Berry v. State, 121 N.E.3d 633, 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (“There

       is nothing in the record that persuades us that the pat-down at issue was

       anything other than an ordinary pat-down, and the intrusion here was

       minimal.”), trans. denied. Trooper Probasco also had a compelling need to seize

       the handgun for his own safety because he was about to transport Hutson in his

       police vehicle. Therefore, Trooper Probasco did not violate Hutson’s rights

       under the Indiana Constitution when he seized the handgun. See Richey, 210

       N.E.3d at 341 (seizure of defendant’s gun before giving defendant a ride in

       police vehicle did not violate the defendant’s rights under Article 1, section 11

       of the Indiana Constitution).

       Conclusion
[16]   Trooper Probasco did not violate Hutson’s rights under either the Fourth

       Amendment or Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution when he

       stopped Hutson after observing Hutson commit the traffic infraction of walking

       along I-465. In addition, Trooper Probasco did not violate Hutson’s rights

       under either the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana

       Constitution when he seized a gun in plain view before placing Hutson in his

       police vehicle. Therefore, we affirm the trial court.

[17]   Affirmed.

       Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2240| July 26, 2023         Page 12 of 12