IN: SI of car for no DL was unreasonable

Search incident of a car for failure to produce identification was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution. Chest v. State, 2009 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2157 (December 23, 2009), The Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published January 12, 2010, reported at Chest v. State, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 2871 (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 23, 2009), ordered published by Chest v. State, 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 13 (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 12, 2010) [Note: The Lexis cites are a three word summary or nothing at all; the link in the case name is to the court’s website]:

Officer Reynolds testified he conducted the search incident to Chest’s arrest, seeking Chest’s driver’s license or other ID. Historically, there are two rationales for the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement: 1) “the need to disarm the suspect” or officer safety; and 2) “the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial.” Moore v. State, 796 N.E.2d 764, 767 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. Neither of these rationales apply here. At the time of the search, Officer Reynolds had safely removed Chest from the vehicle, patted him down for weapons, handcuffed him, and secured him in the back seat of the police car. Officer Reynolds had also not seen Chest make any furtive movements when he pulled him over that might have justified a search of the vehicle. See id., 796 N.E.2d at 767 n.5 (“an officer will search a vehicle after placing an occupant under arrest when he or she is concerned about his or her safety because of furtive or threatening behavior on the part of the occupant of the vehicle.”). Therefore, Officer Reynolds’s safety was no longer a concern.

There was also no need to preserve any evidence in the vehicle for trial. Chest had refused to identify himself and, in so doing, committed the crime. The relevant evidence to convict Chest would be Officer Reynolds’s testimony regarding the refusal, not crimes, for which Officer Reynolds might expect to find evidence in the vehicle, his search of Chest’s vehicle violated Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. As a result, the trial court erred when it admitted the evidence obtained during the search. Thus, we reverse Chest’s conviction for carrying a handgun without a license and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the conviction and sentence imposed thereon.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.