Bell v. State

144 N.E.3d 791

Payton BELL, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2354

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED March 30, 2020

Attorney for Appellant: Kelly Starling, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Josiah Swinney, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Riley, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Payton Bell (Bell), appeals his conviction for carrying a handgun without a license having a previous felony conviction within fifteen years, a Level 5 felony, Ind. Code §§ 35-47-2-1(a), (e)(2).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUES

[3] Bell presents this court with three issues, which we consolidate and restate as the following two:

(1) Whether his seizure and frisk of his person complied with the Fourth Amendment; and

(2) Whether his seizure and frisk of his person was reasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] The Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) owns the Coke Lot (the Lot), which is an open parking area next to the track facility where thousands of Indianapolis 500 attendees may park their recreational vehicles, camp, and socialize during the race weekend. The IMS has a "no-weapons" policy for the Lot. Anyone entering the Lot is provided a written copy of the Lot rules and policies.

[5] On May 29, 2019, Deputy Darrius Austin (Deputy Austin) and Deputy Joshua Tyler (Deputy Tyler) of the Marion County Sheriff's Office were on-duty in uniform at the Lot during the Indianapolis 500 weekend. Their duty that day was to enforce the Lot rules and policies. Up to 100,000 people were present on the Lot that day. The deputies were approached by two people who said they had driven to the Lot with Bell and that he had a handgun they thought might be stolen in his back pocket, which made them feel unsafe. They provided a description of Bell as a white male of average height and build with a tattoo near his right eye, and they told the deputies that they could find Bell in a certain portion of the Lot by a camper with a flag.

[6] The deputies rode to the indicated portion of the Lot in a Kubota UTV, which is similar to a golf cart but more solid. They located a man fitting the description given, later determined to be Bell. The deputies hailed Bell and asked him to approach so they could speak, which Bell did, although he seemed hesitant and reluctant. Bell stopped his approach where he would be out of the deputies' reach. The deputies told Bell that they had a report of a possible weapon in the area and reminded Bell that there was a "no-weapons" policy on the Lot. The deputies explained to Bell that if he had a firearm, they would "run it." (Transcript p. 25). If there were no issues with the firearm, they would allow him to stow it in his vehicle off the Lot.

[7] The deputies asked Bell if he had a weapon, which he denied. Bell then became irate, began shaking nervously, cursed at the deputies, and stated that they needed a warrant to speak to him. Bell took a few backwards steps away from the deputies. The deputies told Bell to calm down and to "stand still, stop[.]" (Tr. p. 34). Bell did not calm down and continued to move away from the deputies, changing his direction as the deputies changed theirs. By that time, another deputy, Deputy Steven Hall (Deputy Hall), had situated himself behind Bell. Bell turned his body slightly to the right, assuming a fighting stance. As he did this, Deputy Hall observed the butt of a handgun poking out of Bell's back pocket. At the same moment, Deputy Hall saw Bell's hand coming down. Deputy Hall yelled that Bell had a gun and grabbed Bell's arm. The other deputies also secured Bell, who was then placed in handcuffs and transported across the Lot.

[8] Subsequent investigation revealed that Bell did not possess a permit to carry the handgun. On May 29, 2019, the State filed an Information, charging Bell with Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The State also alleged that the charge should be elevated to a Level 5 felony due to Bell having a prior felony conviction within the last fifteen years.

[9] On August 20, 2019, the trial court held Bell's bench trial. Bell moved to suppress any evidence obtained from his interaction with the deputies on May 29, 2019, arguing that the deputies did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him when they initially asked to approach so that they could speak. The trial court denied the suppression motion, ruling that the initial encounter between the deputies and Bell was consensual, Bell had escalated the situation with his behavior, Bell was not seized until Deputy Hall grabbed Bell's arm, and that Bell was subsequently frisked, not searched. The trial court granted Bell's request to incorporate the evidence from the suppression hearing into the trial proceedings and admitted the challenged evidence over Bell's objections. During his suppression argument in response to a question by the trial court regarding the extent that police may enforce the rules and policies of private property owners, Bell's counsel argued as follows:

That's what we have here. It's a private organization, [Bell]'s a paying member, he's there legally. At most he's violating their policy and at most is to [sic] kick him off their property but police can't use a no firearms policy to circumvent the Indiana and United States Constitution[s] and detain somebody until they can prove there was no wrong doing.

(Tr. p. 45).

[10] The trial court found Bell guilty of carrying a handgun without a license. Bell then admitted that he had a prior felony conviction for forgery in 2017. On September 7, 2019, the trial court sentenced Bell to three years, with one year executed with the Department of Correction, one year served with Community Corrections on work release, and one year suspended.

[11] Bell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

[12] As a general matter, we review a trial court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. Price v. State , 765 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (Ind. 2002). However, when a defendant's challenge to the admissibility of evidence implicates the constitutionality of a search or seizure, we review the issue de novo because it raises questions of law. Guilmette v. State , 14 N.E.3d 38, 40-41 (Ind. 2014). Regardless, we do not reweigh the evidence. Campos v. State , 885 N.E.2d 590, 596 (Ind. 2008). We also construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's suppression ruling. Marshall v. State , 117 N.E.3d 1254, 1258 (Ind. 2019). In addition, we will consider any substantial and uncontested evidence that supports the defendant's position. Id.

II. Fourth Amendment

[13] The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" and generally prohibits searches and seizures without a warrant supported by probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV ; Clark v. State , 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013). As a result, evidence obtained without a warrant is generally inadmissible unless it falls within one of few well-delineated exceptions. Id. The State has the burden to show that one of these well-delineated exceptions was met. Id.

A. Consensual Encounter

[14] This court has summarized the three levels of police investigations as follows:

First, the Fourth Amendment requires that an arrest or detention for more than a short period be justified by probable cause. Probable cause to arrest exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers are sufficient to warrant a belief by a person of reasonable caution that an offense has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it. Second, it is well-settled Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that police may, without a warrant or probable cause, briefly detain an individual for investigatory purposes if, based on specific and articulable facts, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Accordingly, limited investigatory stops and seizures on the street involving a brief question or two and a possible frisk for weapons can be justified by mere reasonable suspicion. Finally, the third level of investigation occurs when a law enforcement officer makes a casual and brief inquiry of a citizen which involves neither an arrest nor a stop. In this type of consensual encounter no Fourth Amendment interest is implicated.

Overstreet v. State , 724 N.E.2d 661, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citations and quotation omitted), trans. denied . Whether a citizen has been detained for purposes of the Fourth Amendment turns on a determination of whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his or her business. Negash v. State , 113 N.E.3d 1281, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). "Examples of circumstances under which a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave include: (1) the threatening presence of several officers, (2) the display of a weapon by an officer, (3) physical touching of the person, or (4) the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Id.

[15] Bell's counsel argued at trial that the deputies had the right to remove Bell from the Lot for having a gun in contravention of IMS policy, an argument which pre-supposes they had the right to approach him and ask him whether he had a gun. In an apparent concession that the initial encounter between him and the deputies was reasonable, Bell does not address the initial encounter but argues that he was subject to an investigatory stop when deputies told him to "stand still, stop" which occurred after the deputies had asked Bell to approach them and after he had begun answering their questions. (Tr. p. 34). Bell also...