Court Opinion

ID: 9731826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:59:18.60927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:21.451154
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I dissent. This case involves a routine stop of a motorist for driving without proper lights. The officer’s suspicions were aroused when he observed the passenger lay his coat on the backseat and when he saw beer and cigarettes on the backseat of the car. He ordered both occupants out of the car and had them stand between the two vehicles while he checked their identification. Then, being curious about the contents of the car, he left the occupants standing by his car while he proceeded to search the backseat of the automobile. Under the coat in the backseat of the car he found a money *291order machine which was ultimately traced to a store which had been burglarized.
The appellant attacked this search and attempted to exclude the fruits thereof on the ground that the search was a mere exploratory invasion unsupported by either a proper warrant or by any exigent circumstances that would justify the search of the car. Both a pre-trial and an in-trial motion to suppress the evidence found were unsuccessful, and this appeal followed.
For an accurate description of the events leading up to the search, we quote the officer’s own testimony, as follows:
“Q. Did you ever arrest the defendants prior to searching their car?
A. They were placed under arrest when I found the money order machine in the back seat.
Q. At that time were they outside the car ?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Now, as I understand it, you went up along the left-hand side of the car along the driver’s side?
A. Yes.
Q. You asked James Lynch for his driver’s license and registration?
A. Right.
Q. Did he give these to you ?
A. He was in the process of it when I had him get out of the vehicle.
Q. So before you even had the driver’s license you asked him to get out of the car, is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you open the door?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time you saw the knife ?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not see the knife prior to that?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any reason to believe there was a knife there ?
*292A. Not prior to opening the door, no.
Q. Officer, is it customary to have suspects for a driving violation get out of the car ?
A. It’s done quite often.
Q. At this time, as I understand, when you first came up you saw beer in the back seat and cigarettes, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that’s all you saw?
A. And I saw the handle of the machine when I looked back there, yes.
Q. Was this before the door was open?
A. No.
Q. But prior to opening the door and asking the defendants to get out of the car, you saw beer in the back seat and cigarettes in the back seat and that was all?
A. Right.
Q. At the time you pulled out to stop the defendants, did you intend to arrest them for a traffic violation of having no lights on ?
A. This all depends on their ability for walking conditions and also on what kind of excuse they had for driving without their headlights. They may have had a very good reason for it. At the time I stopped them, I didn’t know.
Q. Now prior to actually finding this so-called evidence in the car, had you any notice that there was a burglary in the area ?
A. No.
Q. Had you had any calls to be on a lookout for this car?
A. No.
Q. Or the defendants ?
A. No.
Q. So, as I understand it, the sole reason you stopped them was they had their headlights out?
A. Right.
Q. Officer, after you opened the door and saw the knife you had the defendant get out of the car, is that right?
A. I was having the defendants get out of the car when I found the knife.
*293Q. After you found the knife did you search the defendants at this time ?
A. Not exactly at this time, no.
Q. I assume that you were careful enough so that if they were armed you were in a position to protect yourself ?
A. Right. Gerald Lynch was ordered to have his hands on my hood and stay at this position.
Q. Did you feel yourself in any immediate danger?
A. I always feel this way.
Q. Well, any more than usual? Let’s put it that way?
A. I was being as cautious as possible after finding the knife, but I didn’t suspect that they would try anything immediately, no.
Q. Well, the search of the automobile was not in order to protect yourself, was it?
A. No.
Q. And once again, there was no arrest made until after the car had been searched, is that correct?
A. Right. The car was not completely searched at this time. It was after I found the machine that they were put under arrest at this time. It was a preliminary.”
Further, when speaking of the actual search, the officer testified as follows:
“I had them go behind the car between the two vehicles, my vehicle and their vehicle, and got their identification from them.
I seen the beer in the back of the car and I wanted to- check it out for cigarettes and everything, and I had Gerald Lynch put his hands on the hood of my car and the other subject stand by the back end of his car.
At this time I observed a money order machine on the back seat of the car.”
The majority opinion needs no extended rebuttal. Finding no search on an “open view” theory since there was plainly something hidden in the backseat, and in addition intimating that the officer can search an automobile on nothing next to a mere suspicion or hunch, are so far from the careful con*294stitutional standards governing plain view cases and searches in general that they render themselves difficult to rebut.
As to the plain view theory, the facts are clear that the officer got both occupants out of the car and then returned to the car and rummaged through the backseat of the automobile. There was no inadvertent discovery of contraband in this case and nothing seizable was in view from the outside of the automobile. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U. S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564. It is inconceivable to me that this seizure could be justified on the ground that the articles were in plain view when the record shows that the check-writer was hidden under the coat in the backseat.
As to the theory that the officer had probable cause to search, it is patent in my opinion that a magistrate would not have found the probable cause required to issue a warrant in such a case. See I.C. 1971, 35-1-6-2, being Burns § 9-602, for requirements governing the issuance of a search warrant. If there had been time to procure a warrant, the officer would have been unable to obtain one where he had no knowledge of any kind concerning criminal behavior or of items specifically to be seized. Although the mandatory requirement of obtaining a search warrant is relaxed in certain cases involving automobiles, there is not and cannot be a relaxation of the constitutional requirement of probable cause to support a search. Neither the act of placing a coat in the backseat, nor the presence of beer and cigarettes in the automobile, have any significance at all for any specific criminal behavior until we decide the occupants are guilty of some crime. Then, of course, every move and every word can be marshalled against the accused. However, we do not live in a society where the results of a search can be used to justify it. Ferry v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 27, 262 N. E. 2d 523.
In this case a citizen who was stopped for driving without lights made a move innocent in itself, which caused the officer to become suspicious. He was removed from the car, forced *295to put his hands on the police car, and kept in that position while the officer rummaged through his possessions in the backseat of the car. If nothing had been found in this case, two citizens, embittered by the diminishing areas of individual freedom in this country, would have driven on into the night. The fact that we do not hear their story on appeal, and the fact that the appeals we do hear all concern “hunches” which have paid off, should not blind us to our duty under the Constitution to protect the individual citizen of this country from an illicit intrusion by the State.
Note. — Reported in 280 N. E. 2d 821.