Court Opinion

ID: 9897417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:18.059624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:46.042242
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                             Apr 28 2023, 8:33 am

                                                                                 CLERK
                                                                             Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                Court of Appeals
                                                                                  and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kirk S. Freeman                                             Theodore E. Rokita
Law Office of Kirk Freeman                                  Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana                                          Caroline G. Templeton
                                                            Catherine E. Brizzi
                                                            Deputy Attorneys General
                                                            Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
     COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bryan C. Falletti,                                          April 28, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                            22A-IF-1066
        v.                                                  Appeal from the Warren Circuit
                                                            Court
State of Indiana,                                           The Honorable Hunter Reece,
Appellee-Plaintiff.                                         Judge
                                                            Trial Court Cause No.
                                                            86C01-2111-IF-743

                                Opinion by Judge Robb
                        Judges Weissmann and Kenworthy concur.

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                    Page 1 of 13
      Case Summary and Issue
[1]   Indiana Code section 36-8-12-11(a) allows members of a volunteer fire

      department to “display [illuminated] blue lights on their privately owned

      vehicles while en route to scenes of emergencies or to the fire station in the line

      of duty[,]” subject to certain conditions on the type and placement of the lights.

      A person who is not a member of a volunteer fire department “may not display

      an illuminated blue light on a vehicle.” Ind. Code § 36-8-12-11(c). To do so is

      a Class C infraction. Ind. Code § 36-8-12-11(e).

[2]   Bryan Falletti was cited for displaying illuminated blue lights from the rear

      window of his vehicle. Following a bench trial at which Falletti admitted he is

      not a member of a volunteer fire department, the trial court found he was in

      violation of section 36-8-12-11(c). Falletti appeals the trial court’s entry of

      judgment against him for the Class C infraction, arguing the trial court

      incorrectly interpreted the statute. Concluding the statute prohibits the lights

      displayed by Falletti, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

      Facts and Procedural History                                  1

      1
       We held oral argument on March 10, 2023, at Swan Lake Resort in Plymouth, Indiana, during the annual
      Women’s Bench Bar Retreat. We commend counsel for their advocacy, and we thank Swan Lake Resort, the
      Indiana State Bar Association, and the Women in Law Committee for hosting the event. We also extend our
      appreciation to the attendees for their attention and the insightful questions posed to the panel and counsel
      after the argument.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                               Page 2 of 13
[3]   Indiana State Police Trooper Jonathan Fulfur was driving on U.S. 136 in

      Warren County after dark when he encountered Falletti’s vehicle as it came up

      a ramp toward U.S. 136. Trooper Fulfur saw “a blue light emitting from the

      vehicle.” Transcript, Volume 2 at 4. Trooper Fulfur then positioned himself

      behind Falletti’s vehicle and “observed two (2) blue lights in the rear window

      that were facing outward. One on each side across the top of the back

      window.” Id. at 5. On cross-examination, Trooper Fulfur elaborated on what

      he saw:

               Q        These lights, they were on the interior of the window?
               A        Yes sir.
               Q        In the interior of the back window?
               A        Yes, they were across the top of the back window.
               Q        Pointing inside?
               A        Pointing outward.

      Id. at 10. 2 Trooper Fulfur initiated a traffic stop and gave Falletti a citation for

      having blue lights on a private vehicle. 3 See Amended Appellant’s Appendix,

      Volume 2 at 8.

[4]   The trial court held a bench trial on February 24, 2022. Falletti acknowledged

      he was not a volunteer member of any fire department when Trooper Fulfur

      2
        The evidence includes a DVD with both dashcam and bodycam video. The dashcam video shows two
      steadily illuminated, bar-shaped blue lights at the top of the rear window of the vehicle, one on each side of
      where a brake light would be.
      3
        Trooper Fulfur also issued Falletti a citation for operating a vehicle without a license in his possession, see
      Ind. Code § 9-24-13-3, and the trial court found he had committed the infraction, see Ind. Code § 9-24-13-5
      (stating a violation of the chapter is a Class C infraction). Falletti does not challenge that finding on appeal.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                     Page 3 of 13
stopped him. See Tr., Vol. 2 at 12. At the conclusion of the trial, Falletti

argued:

        I urge you to look at . . . what the statute says. It applies to
        volunteer fire fighters and it says, look, you can have these lights,
        but this is how the light has to be. . . . Then it goes on and it
        says, a person who is not a member of a volunteer fire
        department may not display an illuminate[d] blue light on a
        vehicle. Number 1) These lights weren’t on a vehicle, they were
        in the vehicle, ok. That statute, there is no possible way this can
        apply to any blue light in a vehicle. It first of all has to be on it
        and I think the Court can take judicial notice that almost half the
        cars on the road display a blue light in the vehicle on the radio,
        on the numbers. So that cannot be what this statute is designed
        to address. . . . This statute is absolutely clear. . . . If you are not
        a volunteer fireman, you can’t put one of those blue lights on the
        outside of your car ok, and drive around with it. In that instance I
        do agree with the State and that makes good sense. You
        shouldn’t be allowed to do that if you are not a volunteer fireman
        because it would confuse the public, but that is not at all what we
        are talking about here.

        ***

        So we start with that premise, ok, if you are a volunteer fire
        department [member], you can display a blue light. The light,
        which is then defined in a 1 and 2, 3 and 4, this is the type of . . .
        blue light you can display as a volunteer fireman, ok. Then it
        goes on to say, any person who is not a member of a volunteer
        fire department may not display that illuminated blue light on a
        vehicle, ok. This is not one of those types of lights.

Id. at 15-17 (emphases added).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                Page 4 of 13
[5]   The trial court took the matter under advisement and later issued a written

      order entering judgment and a fine against Falletti for the Class C infraction. In

      pertinent part, the judgment reads:

              [T]he Court finds that the strict interpretation of the statute by
              [Falletti] is not reasonable and contrary to legislative intent.
              Statutes which regulate emergency lights on emergency vehicles,
              implicitly intend to prevent non-emergency vehicles from
              utilizing those lights. Here, the statute refers to a light “on” the
              vehicle and does not limit it to being affixed on the interior or
              exterior. The statute in [subs]ection (a)(2) uses terms like “top”
              and “inside”, so it is reasonable to infer that the legislature could
              have used those terms here, if they meant to be so limiting, but
              they did not. The legislature used the general term “on the
              vehicle.”

      Appealed Order at 2. Falletti filed a motion to correct error, which the trial

      court denied. Falletti now appeals the judgment against him.

      Discussion and Decision
      I.      Display of Blue Lights on a Vehicle
[6]   The statute at issue states:

              (a) Members of volunteer fire departments may display blue
              lights on their privately owned vehicles while en route to scenes
              of emergencies or to the fire station in the line of duty subject to
              the following conditions:

                       (1) A light:

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023              Page 5 of 13
                          (A) must have a light source of at least thirty-five
                          (35) watts; or

                          (B) may be a blue light emitting diode (LED).

                 (2) All lights must be placed on the:

                          (A) top of the vehicle;

                          (B) dashboard inside a vehicle, shielded to prevent
                          distracting the driver; or

                          (C) front of the vehicle upon the bumper or at
                          bumper level.

                 (3) No more than four (4) blue light assemblies may be
                 displayed on one (1) vehicle, and each blue light assembly
                 must be of the flashing or revolving type.

                 (4) A blue light assembly may contain multiple bulbs.

                 (5) A blue light may not be a part of the regular head
                 lamps displayed on the vehicles. Alternately flashing head
                 lamps may be used as a supplemental warning device.
                 Strobe lights or flashers may be installed into the light
                 fixtures on the vehicle other than the alternating head
                 lamps. The strobe lights or flashers may be either white or
                 blue, with the exception of red to the rear.

        ***

        (c) A person who is not a member of a volunteer fire department
        may not display an illuminated blue light on a vehicle.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                Page 6 of 13
               ***

               (e) A person who violates subsection (a) [or] (c) . . . commits a
               Class C infraction. . . .

      Ind. Code § 36-8-12-11 (2016).

[7]   Falletti contends the trial court erred in determining he violated subsection (c)

      of this statute upon finding the statutory language is clear he could not display

      “two rear fac[ing] emergency style” illuminated blue lights whether “affixed on

      the interior or exterior” of the car. Appealed Order at 2. Falletti argues the

      phrase “on a vehicle” in subsection (c) is ambiguous and the rule of lenity

      should apply such that the phrase is interpreted in his favor to mean “on the

      exterior of a vehicle.” See Brief of Appellant at 8. He also argues subsection (a)

      of the statute is a specific grant of authority to volunteer firefighters to display

      blue lights as described in that subsection whereas subsection (c) is a general

      prohibition on non-volunteer firefighters usurping that specific authority. In

      other words, Falletti contends subsection (c) only prohibits the general public

      from displaying blue lights of the type and in the locations described in

      subsection (a).

[8]   No case has interpreted this statute,4 so we write on a clean slate.

      4
        Section 36-8-12-11 has been cited in one case, State v. Howell, 782 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). There,
      police initiated a traffic stop based on the belief a blue neon light encircling the vehicle’s license plate was an
      infraction under the statute. The defendant refused to stop and was charged with multiple crimes, including

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                     Page 7 of 13
       II. Statutory Interpretation
[9]    The parties agree this appeal turns on the interpretation of section 36-8-12-11, a

       question of law that we review de novo. Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138

       (Ind. 2022).

[10]   We interpret statutes with the primary goal of determining and fulfilling the

       legislature’s intent. See Mi.D. v. State, 57 N.E.3d 809, 812 (Ind. 2016). The best

       evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Lake Cnty. Bd.

       of Comm’rs v. State, 181 N.E.3d 960, 968 (Ind. 2022). We presume the

       legislature intended the statutory language to be applied in a logical manner

       consistent with the statute’s underlying policy and goals. Nicoson v. State, 938

       N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. 2010). “The legislative intent as ascertained from the

       provision as a whole prevails over the strict literal meaning of any word or

       term.” Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Bushong

       v. Williamson, 790 N.E.2d 467, 471 (Ind. 2003)). When the language of a

       statute is clear and unambiguous, we do not apply any rules of statutory

       construction and simply apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the language.

       See Study v. State, 24 N.E.3d 947, 952 (Ind. 2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 962

       (2015).

       the Class C infraction of illegally displaying a blue light. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to
       dismiss the charges against him, concluding the stop was improper because section 36-8-12-11 is not geared
       toward the particular light display at issue. Id. at 1067. On appeal, a panel of this court reversed the trial
       court but did not address the legality of the light display, instead holding that “regardless of whether the
       initial stop . . . was justified,” the defendant improperly resisted arrest. Id. at 1067-68.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                  Page 8 of 13
[11]   Here, the language of section 36-8-12-11 as a whole clearly and unambiguously

       expresses the legislature’s intent that members of volunteer fire departments are

       authorized to display illuminated blue lights on their vehicles to alert the public

       they are on the way to a fire emergency or other official business. The

       operative term in subsection (a) is “display” because that is the action the

       statute allows (or disallows) to implement the underlying policy of

       differentiating vehicles belonging to this class of persons. 5 To “display” means

       “to put (something) where people can see it,” The Britannica Dictionary,

       https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/display (last visited April 17, 2023)

       [https://perma.cc/2WDC-TXM7], or “to put or spread before the view” or “to

       make evident,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-

       webster.com/dictionary/display (last visited April 17, 2023)

       [https://perma.cc/MH7L-HGNZ]. The logical corollary, expressed in

       subsection (c), is that no other motorists are authorized to display illuminated

       blue lights visible to the public. 6 “On,” the word Falletti focuses on in the

       phrase “may not display . . . on a vehicle,” simply defines the parameters for

       “display.” Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the language in section

       5
         Other statutes govern display of colored lights besides blue. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 9-19-14.5-1 (authorizing
       display of flashing or revolving green lights by an emergency medical responder “on the top of” a privately
       owned vehicle while traveling in the line of duty); Ind. Code § 9-19-14.5-2 (making display of flashing or
       revolving green lights except as provided in section 1 a Class C infraction).
       6
         Although not specifically advanced as an argument on appeal, Falletti’s trial counsel argued the statute
       could not be interpreted in this way because of the prevalence of blue dashboard lights. As the trial court
       noted in its order and as we have stated here, the statute is intended to prohibit non-authorized persons from
       displaying blue lights in places where they “are clearly visible to passing motorists.” Appealed Order at 2.
       Moreover, subsection (a) includes a minimum wattage for lights displayed by volunteer firefighters. Ind. Code
       § 36-8-12-11(a)(1). That language was included for a reason.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                   Page 9 of 13
       36-8-12-11 in a manner consistent with the policy and goals of the statute,

       volunteer firefighters may display blue lights in limited places on their vehicles

       visible to the public, but non-volunteer firefighters may not display blue lights

       visible to the public at all.

[12]   Although this conclusion is based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the

       statute, even if there were conflicting reasonable interpretations, applying the

       canons of statutory construction would lead us to the same outcome.

[13]   Falletti’s desired interpretation focuses on a single phrase in subsection (c): a

       non-volunteer firefighter is prohibited from displaying an illuminated blue light

       “on a vehicle.” Falletti argues “on” has “many meanings” and “in this context

       must be confined to [mean] the exterior of the vehicle.” Br. of Appellant at 8. 7

       But we “may not add new words to a statute which are not the expressed intent

       of the legislature.” Ind. Alcohol and Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 79

       N.E.3d 371, 376 (Ind. 2017). Further, “it is a normal rule of statutory

       construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are

       intended to have the same meaning.” Miller v. Patel, 174 N.E.3d 1061, 1065 n.1

       (Ind. 2021) (quoting Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 571

       (2012)).

       7
        Falletti contended at oral argument it is the legislature’s obligation to craft statutes that are readable and
       comprehensible to a reader of average intelligence and argued this statute is confusing as written. He
       conceded, however, that he did not tell the officer or the court that he thought he could display the lights.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                    Page 10 of 13
[14]   If we accepted Falletti’s contention that the phrase “on a vehicle” in subsection

       (c) is ambiguous and must be construed against the State to prohibit the display

       of blue lights only “on the exterior of a vehicle” driven by a non-volunteer

       firefighter, then the same construction should apply to that phrase wherever it

       appears in the statute. Subsection (a) states members of volunteer fire

       departments may display illuminated blue lights “on their . . . vehicles” at

       appropriate times and specifically allows volunteer firefighters to display blue

       lights both on the exterior and interior of their vehicles. See Ind. Code § 36-8-

       12-11(a)(2) (specifying that lights must be placed on top of the vehicle, on the

       dashboard inside the vehicle, or on the front bumper). Thus, the expressed intent

       of the legislature is that to display “on a vehicle” as used in section 36-8-12-11

       does not mean to display on the exterior of the vehicle only. To interpret the

       statute otherwise would cause it to be internally inconsistent.

[15]   We also conclude the interpretations urged by Falletti would produce absurd

       results. See Walczak v. Lab. Works Ft. Wayne LLC, 983 N.E.2d 1146, 1154 (Ind.

       2013) (stating we avoid construing a statute “so as to create an absurd result”).

       The purpose of the statute is to grant volunteer firefighters the authority to

       display blue lights on their private vehicles, singling them out for this privilege.

       The fact the statute restricts the type and placement of blue lights on a volunteer

       firefighter’s vehicle does not leave the field open for vehicles belonging to non-

       volunteer firefighters to display other types of lights in other places as Falletti

       urges. To interpret the statute in such a way would give non-volunteer

       firefighters more leeway in displaying blue lights than the group the statute was

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023          Page 11 of 13
       intended to benefit and would be at odds with the statute’s purpose of

       distinguishing volunteer firefighters from the rest of the motoring public.

[16]   Finally, although we apply the rule of lenity in criminal cases and construe an

       ambiguous penal statute 8 against the State, we are not required to construe a

       statute so narrowly that we exclude cases the statute fairly covers. Fix, 186

       N.E.3d at 1139. The facts of this case—the display of blue lights visible to other

       motorists on a non-volunteer firefighter’s private vehicle—are fairly covered by

       the statute. Moreover, the rule of lenity applies only when ambiguity remains

       after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction. Shular v. United

       States, 140 S. Ct. 779, 787 (2020). Here, we are left with no ambiguity for the

       rule of lenity to resolve.

[17]   The text and context of section 36-8-12-11 allow volunteer firefighters and only

       volunteer firefighters to display illuminated blue lights. Falletti does not claim

       to be a volunteer firefighter and he does not contest that the blue lights in

       question were clearly displayed. He therefore committed a Class C infraction

       by displaying illuminated blue lights in his rear window.

       Conclusion

       8
         The rule of lenity applies to this infraction case because a “monetary judgment entered upon a finding of a
       violation of an infraction is the functional equivalent of a penal fine.” Dunham v. State, 119 N.E.3d 117, 119
       (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023                                Page 12 of 13
[18]   The judgment of the trial court that Falletti committed a Class C infraction is

       affirmed.

[19]   Affirmed.

       Weissmann, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-IF-1066| April 28, 2023       Page 13 of 13