D.Y. v. State

28 N.E.3d 249

D.Y., Appellant–Defendant

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 49A02–1405–JV–298.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 11, 2015.

Patricia Caress McMath, Michelle C. Langdon, Certified Legal Intern, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

PYLE, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Defendant/Appellant, D.Y., appeals his adjudication as a delinquent child, which was based on the juvenile court's true finding that he had committed dangerous possession of a firearm¹ and carrying a handgun without a license.² D.Y. was a potential suspect in a burglary, and a police officer told him that he was going to transport him to police headquarters for the burglary investigation. Prior to putting D.Y. into the police vehicle, the officer patted him down and discovered a firearm in D.Y.'s jacket. Subsequently, the State filed a petition alleging that D.Y. was a delinquent child for committing dangerous possession of a firearm and carrying a handgun without a license, both of which would be Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. D.Y. filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing that it was the result of an illegal search. The juvenile court denied the motion and adjudicated D.Y. a delinquent child.

[2] On appeal, D.Y. now argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting the firearm because it was the result of an unlawful search. He asserts that the search was unlawful because: (1) it was incident to an unlawful arrest; (2) it was incident to an unlawful investigatory stop; and (3) the officer did not have reasonable concerns for safety to justify the search. We conclude that the juvenile court abused its discretion in admitting the firearm because it was obtained through a search incident to an unlawful arrest. Because the evidence of the firearm was an essential element of D.Y.'s charges, we reverse and remand to the juvenile court with instructions to vacate its true findings and D.Y.'s adjudication as a delinquent child.

[3] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Issue

[4] Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of a firearm found in D.Y.'s pocket during a pat down.

Facts³

[5] On February 17, 2014, Officer Sydney McDaniel (“Officer McDaniel”) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) was dispatched to the scene of a disturbance near 12th Street and Concord Street in Indianapolis. When he arrived, he found two males confronting a juvenile, A.I., about a burglary that they believed he had committed the previous month (“First Burglary”). Another male, Brian Smith (“Smith”), was also at the scene and was confronting A.I. about a separate burglary of his house that had occurred the prior weekend (“Second Burglary”). Officer McDaniel questioned the three alleged victims and, based on the information they gave him, detained A.I. and transported him to the police department's roll call for questioning. Officer McDaniel then followed Smith to his house to make a report of the Second Burglary.

[6] At Smith's house, Smith told Officer McDaniel that he and his wife had gone on a short vacation the previous weekend. When they returned, they found that someone had kicked in their back door and ripped the plastic that had been over the door. They also discovered that Smith's big screen television and Xbox were missing, although a broken Xbox in another room was still there. Smith told Officer McDaniel that he suspected that A.I., D.Y., and/or one other individual had been involved in the burglary because they had frequently played video games at his house and knew which Xbox was broken.⁴

[7] Officer McDaniel made a report of the burglary and called IMPD Detective Mark Howard (“Detective Howard”), who also came to the scene and spoke to the Smiths. Afterwards, both officers left Smith's house, and Detective Howard returned to the IMPD's southwest district headquarters. There, another detective contacted Detective Howard and told him that there was a possibility that D.Y. was also a suspect in the First Burglary. However, Detective Howard never communicated this information to Officer McDaniel.

[8] Later that day, Officer McDaniel received a dispatch that Smith's wife had called to say that D.Y. was on the way to Smith's house to talk to Smith about his suspicions. Officer McDaniel called Detective Howard with the information, and Detective Howard told Officer McDaniel to “detain” D.Y. and bring him into roll call so that he could give a statement. (Tr. 24 ).

[9] When Officer McDaniel arrived at Smith's house, Smith and D.Y. were sitting on the couch talking. Officer McDaniel explained to D.Y. “why it [was] that [he] was there and that [he] would be transporting [D.Y.] to [IMPD's] district roll call for some burglary investigation that he was a possible suspect in.” (Tr. 38 ). Officer McDaniel then “told [D.Y.] that [he] would have to search him to put him in [the] police vehicle so that he could be transported.” (Tr. 38 ). Thereafter, Officer McDaniel conducted a pat down search of D.Y. and found a gun in his jacket pocket.⁵ Because Officer McDaniel was aware that D.Y. was under the age of eighteen, he secured the weapon, placed D.Y. in handcuffs, and transported him to the police headquarters.

[10] The next day, on February 18, 2014, the State filed a petition alleging that sixteen-year-old D.Y. was a delinquent child for committing one count of dangerous possession of a firearm and one count of carrying a handgun without a license, both of which would have been Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. Subsequently, D.Y. moved to suppress the evidence of the firearm that Officer McDaniel had found as a result of his pat down.⁶

[11] On March 13, 2014, the juvenile court held a denial and suppression hearing concerning the State's petition and D.Y.'s motion to suppress. During the hearing, D.Y. argued that Officer McDaniel's pat down had violated his constitutional rights under the United States and Indiana constitutions and that, as a result, the juvenile court should suppress the firearm discovered during the search. The State argued that the pat down did not violate D.Y.'s constitutional rights because Officer McDaniel had probable cause or reasonable suspicion that D.Y. had committed a burglary, as well as reasonable concerns for his safety. D.Y. disputed each of these arguments. Ultimately, the juvenile court denied D.Y.'s motion to suppress and entered a true finding on both of D.Y.'s charges, thereby adjudicating him a delinquent child. On April 3, 2014, the court held a dispositional hearing and placed D.Y. on probation to last until July 31, 2014, for the dangerous possession of a firearm finding. The juvenile court dismissed the finding of carrying a handgun without a license. D.Y. now appeals.

Decision

[12] On appeal, D.Y. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it admitted the evidence of the firearm because the firearm was obtained pursuant to an illegal search. He asserts that the search was illegal because Officer McDaniel arrested him without a warrant or probable cause and, thus, the subsequent search violated his right to be free from search and seizure under the United States and Indiana constitutions. Alternately, D.Y. argues that, even if Officer McDaniel's actions did not constitute a seizure or arrest, Officer McDaniel still conducted an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion that he had committed a burglary. Finally, D.Y. contends that, even if Officer McDaniel had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop, the officer could not justify his pat down of D.Y. based on concerns for officer safety because he did not have a reasonable fear of danger.

[13] Preliminarily, we note that the juvenile court here held a hearing on D.Y.'s motion to suppress in conjunction with his denial hearing and ruled on the matter as a question of admissibility. We review a ruling concerning the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. S.G. v. State, 956 N.E.2d 668, 674 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), trans. denied. We will find that a juvenile court has abused its discretion only when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Holbert v. State, 996 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. denied. In making this determination, we cannot reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we must consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's ruling. Johnson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 955, 957 (Ind.Ct.App.2013), trans. denied. Further, it is well-settled that when reviewing the constitutionality of a search or seizure, we must examine “ ‘any uncontested evidence favorable to the appellant.’ ” Id. (quoting Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 434 (Ind.1993) ). “ ‘Although a trial court's determination of historical facts is entitled to deferential review, we employ a de novo standard when reviewing the trial court's ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause.’ ” Id. (quoting Lindsey v. State, 916 N.E.2d 230, 238 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied ).

[14] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects both privacy and possessory interests by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.⁷ N.W. v. State, 834 N.E.2d 159, 161–62 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches. Id. at 162. However, the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is subject to a few well-delineated exceptions. Johnson v. State, 710 N.E.2d 925, 927 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). When a search is conducted without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at the time of the search. Holbert, 996 N.E.2d at 399. Generally speaking, we must exclude evidence directly obtained via an...