Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA trial court erred in suppressing evidence of methamphetamine found in a northern Indiana man’s backpack after he was arrested on an outstanding warrant, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
The appellate panel reversed the DeKalb Superior Court’s order to suppress evidence that led to meth possession and dealing charges in State of Indiana v. Justin Crager, 18A-CR-671.
Garrett Police Sgt. Kyle LaMotte testified he was on patrol in July 2017 when he saw Justin Crager ride a motorcycle to a gas station. LaMotte said was aware Crager had an active warrant, so he pulled in behind him and called for Crager as he walked toward the door of the station.
LaMotte “asked Crager to place his backpack on the ground, Crager did so, and Sergeant LaMotte placed him in handcuffs for the active arrest warrant. When asked if he had confirmed the warrant at that point, Sergeant LaMotte answered: ‘I, I’m unsure at what point they came back with that.’ … Sergeant LaMotte indicated that he arrested Crager based on his belief that he had an active warrant,” according to the record.
Crager declined to consent to a search of the backpack, after which LaMotte broke a lock on a compartment, discovering crystal meth, a meth pipe, a digital scale and a syringe, among other things. Crager was charged with Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.
But in March, the trial court suppressed the evidence obtained from the search, agreeing with Crager that the search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court found, “the circumstances here do not support the claim that the backpack was in control of Mr. Crager at the time of the arrest. Mr. Crager complied with the officer’s request to place the backpack on the ground, and put his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. As such, there was no concern for officer safety or destruction of the contents of the backpack at the time of the search. … Nor did the State show any other justification for the warrantless search of the backpack, i.e., consent or written policy regarding inventory searches.”
But writing for a unanimous appellate panel, Judge Elaine Brown agreed with the state’s argument that the search was justified under either a Fourth Amendment or an Article I, Section 11 analysis.
Citing Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1196 (Ind. 2016), the COA found the evidence should have been admitted under the search incident to arrest exception. In Garcia, Brown noted, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that it “once a lawful arrest has been made, authorities may conduct a ‘full search’ of the arrestee for weapons or concealed evidence. No additional probable cause for the search is required …”
Concern for officer safety also weighed in favor of permitting the search, Brown wrote, noting that LaMotte testified that Crager’s backpack would have been searched regardless when he was taken to jail for the outstanding warrant.
“Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the search of the backpack was reasonable,” Brown wrote.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.