Indiana Courts Strengthen 4th Amendment Against Lying Police Officers

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the 4th Amendment against Officers that lie in order to get into a person's home.  In the case of Harper v. State Police Officers lied in order to gain entry into a person's home.  Once inside the officers arrested this same person and when the officers requested she remove her wedding ring, the individual shook her shoulders forward and pulled away from the police officers.  The State of Indiana then charged this individual with Resisting Law Enforcement.  

The Court ruled that when officers want to enter into a home, even to arrest a person, the police need a warrant.  While there can be exceptions to this rule, the State must prove the exception exists.  And the Court reaffirmed that an exigent circumstance does not exist simply because a person is inside the home that an officer wants to arrest.  Most importantly, the Court ruled that since the Officers were not engaged in the execution of their lawful duties the person arrested could not be guilty of resisting law enforcement.  

The police are allowed to lie to people during the course of an investigation. The police are allowed to make promises they do not intend to keep to people during the course of an investigation.  The solution?  Do not talk to the police.  Do not invite them into your home. If the police show up at your home, demand to see a warrant.  If you or a loved one have been arrested, contact Attorney Marc Lopez by email or at 317 632 3642.  

Indiana Court Puts Brakes on "Pat Down Searches."

In the State of Indiana, Pat Down searches are a tool used by the police to pat down a person for possible weapons, so that a police officer can conduct an investigation without fear of being harmed.  This pat down can only occur if an officer has knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the officer is in danger.  While a Pat Down search, which is just a pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect, can help keep officers safe, it is frequently used as justification for trying to find other items, such as controlled substances.  "I wasn't trying to find marijuana on the defendant your honor, I was simply conducting a Pat Down search for officer safety."

In a case decided in late February 2014, Cunningham v. State the Indiana Court of Appeals an Officer pulled over a driver for having a missing tail lamp.  When the driver was surprised the tail lamp was missing, he requested that he be able to see the missing tail lamp for himself.  The Officer said that the driver could go see for himself, but that the Officer would Pat Down search the driver if the driver got out of the car.  The driver agreed and was searched by a Pat Down.  The driver was in possession of marijuana.  

The Court of Appeals, by a split decision, reversed this trial court and said that the Pat Down search was illegal.  The Court noted the complete lack of any reason why the Officer felt he was in danger.  And the Court held that the "consent' given by the driver to the Officer for the Pat Down search was was not true consent but merely submission to the police authority - which is actually the absence of freely and voluntarily consent.   

The Court in Cunningham have struck a huge victory for the everyday person to be free from searches by Police.  Indiana Search and Seizure law is complicated.  If you have an issue with search and seizure, please be sure to contact a knowledgeable trial attorney.   If you or someone you care about has been charged with a crime please contact Attorney Lopez at (317) 632-3642 or through email.