Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man convicted of drug charges could not convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that meth-related evidence was improperly admitted at his trial, but he did prevail on his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support a marijuana conviction.
In January 2021, Elkhart Police Sgt. Seth Watkins was dispatched to a local grocery store regarding a medical emergency. At the store, Watkins found a disheveled man, later identified as Herman Fritz, laying on his back in the store’s parking lot.
Fritz told Watkins he must have fallen, and Watkins asked if he had consumed any drugs. Fritz denied that he had.
Paramedics arrived and began assisting Fritz. Watkins decided to perform a pat-down search of Fritz for officer safety and asked if Fritz if had anything that was going to stick or poke. Fritz said no.
But when Watkins patted down the interior pocket of Fritz’s coat, he found two cylindrical objects with bulbous ends that he believed to be pipes used to ingest methamphetamine. He took the pipes out of Fritz’s pocket, and Fritz said he used them to smoke tobacco and synthetic drugs.
Watkins determined that Fritz was under arrest for possession of paraphernalia based on the suspected meth pipes. But because Watkins was concerned that Fritz might have sustained a head injury, Fritz needed to be medically cleared before going to jail.
Fritz was thus transported to Elkhart General Hospital for evaluation. At the hospital, Watkins performed a search of Fritz’s person incident to his arrest that revealed a black mask containing a plastic baggy with a white crystal-like substance inside, later identified as 3.04 grams of meth.
Fritz became upset when Watkins found the meth, yelling obscenities and trying to get out of the hospital bed. He also threatened to kill Watkins and attempted to kick the attending hospital personnel.
Watkins physically restrained Fritz and handcuffed him to the hospital bed. He then continued his search and found two hand-rolled cigarettes that contained a green leafy substance that smelled of marijuana.
Fritz was sedated, and when he awoke he was read his Miranda rights. Watkins then began questioning Fritz, who admitted to having marijuana and meth.
Once Fritz was medically cleared to leave the hospital, Watkins transported him to jail.
In February 2021, Fritz was charged with Level 6 felony possession of meth, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
Fritz filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the pat-down search, but the Elkhart Superior Court denied the motion.
A jury trial was held in August 2022, where Fritz objected to the admission of evidence obtained during the pat-down search of his person. The trial court overruled the objection, and the jury found Fritz guilty on all counts.
He later pleaded guilty to the enhanced offense of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana with a prior conviction for a drug offense.
Fritz appealed, arguing first that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence seized during the pat-down and search incident to arrest.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no violation of Fritz’s Fourth Amendment right.
“The protective patdown search that Sergeant Watkins performed before Fritz was transported to the hospital in the ambulance was limited to a search for weapons and/or items that might harm Sergeant Watkins or the paramedics as they administered treatment to Fritz,” Judge Rudolph Pyle. “Under such circumstances, Sergeant Watkins had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Fritz might need medical assistance, and it was not unreasonable for the sergeant to be concerned about his safety and the safety of the attending paramedics when they rendered assistance to Fritz.
“… Therefore, we conclude that the State has carried its burden of showing an exception to the warrant requirement to justify the patdown search,” Pyle wrote. “We also conclude that the search was permissible under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment because it was reasonable for Sergeant Watkins to believe that Fritz needed medical attention.”
The appellate court also upheld the removal of the meth pipes from Fritz’s pocket, finding the first pipe was “immediately apparent to Sergeant Watkins.”
Likewise as to the search incident to arrest, Pyle wrote, “Once Sergeant Watkins discovered the pipes that he believed were used to consume methamphetamine, he had probable cause to arrest Fritz for possession of paraphernalia. … Sergeant Watkins testified that, at that point, he had determined that Watkins was under arrest for possession of paraphernalia, but out of caution, had Fritz transported to the hospital for evaluation.
“The search Sergeant Watkins performed at the hospital incident to Fritz’s arrest resulted in Sergeant Watkins finding the methamphetamine in Fritz’s pants pocket and the marijuana cigarettes in Fritz’s jacket pocket,” Pyle continued. “Sergeant Watkins’ discovery of the methamphetamine and the marijuana cigarettes in Fritz’s pockets did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the trial court properly admitted the evidence.”
Fritz also raised an argument under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution, but the COA determined that argument was waived.
But the appellate court did rule for Fritz on his argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his marijuana conviction.
According to Pyle, the state did not present any evidence of delta-9-THC concentration in the cigarettes.
“Our General Assembly has established a clear distinction between legal hemp and illegal marijuana based on the THC concentration present in the plant material, the effect being to now require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is marijuana by proving that the substance’s delta-9-THC concentration exceeds 0.3% on a dry weight basis,” Pyle wrote. “… Thus, the evidence presented at Fritz’s trial was insufficient for the jury to conclude that the cigarettes found on Fritz’s person contained marijuana and not a legal substance.”
The case was thus remanded for the trial court to vacate Fritz’s marijuana possession conviction and related sentence.
Judges Nancy Vaidik and Paul Mathias concurred in Herman O. Fritz v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2340.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.