COA upholds exclusion of drug evidence from car search

Evidence taken from the search of a car after a man was stopped in Jennings County on a traffic violation was properly suppressed by the trial court, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

Larry Janes was driving a vehicle that was stopped early one morning in May 2016 after he failed to dim his headlights while passing a reserve deputy.  The deputy followed Janes and stopped his vehicle after observing driving and behavior that made him suspect Janes was impaired. Two other Jennings County officers also were called to the scene.

After a deputy gave Janes a verbal warning for failing to dim his headlights, he went back and asked the driver if he’d had anything to drink that night, if there was anything illegal in the car, and other questions. He then asked, “Would you give us a chance to look in there?”

The officers searched the vehicle, but Janes repeatedly told them it wasn’t his. They found a meth pipe under the seat and meth in the vehicle’s trunk and in a passenger’s purse. Janes was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of meth and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Janes said at a suppression hearing that he thought officers merely wanted to shine a flashlight in his car when they asked if they could “look in,” and he felt at no time that he was free to go. The Jennings Circuit Court granted the motion to suppress.

“Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds Defendant was in custody when Littrell asked if he could ‘look in there’. Therefore, Pirtle warnings were required and were not given, and the fruits of the search of the vehicle are suppressed,” the trial court wrote.

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the state’s appeal of that decision and affirmed the trial court in State of Indiana v. Larry O. Janes, 40A01-1706-CR-1328.

“Pursuant to the Indiana constitution, our Supreme Court held that ‘a person who is asked to give consent to search while in police custody is entitled to the presence and advice of counsel prior to making the decision whether to give such consent.’ Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 29, 323 N.E.2d 634, 640 (1975),” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote for the panel. “When a person does not receive this warning, ‘whether the evidence must be suppressed turns on whether the defendant was in custody at the time consent was requested.’ Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 873 (Ind. 2009).”

“We agree that, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave this scene,” Bailey continued. “As a result, Janes was entitled to a Pirtle warning, which he did not receive. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by suppressing the evidence found in the search.”