Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Court of Appeals has declined to overturn a man’s methamphetamine-related convictions, rejecting the man’s argument that the search of his vehicle violated his constitutional rights.
The man, James Earnest Ramsey, encountered Danville Police Sgt. Jeffrey Slayback in August 2019 while Slayback was patrolling a local Circle K gas station. Ramsey’s car was parked at the Circle K, and when Slayback ran the temporary plate, he discovered that Ramsey had a suspended license and had been reported missing.
Slayback thus followed Ramsey as he left the gas station, then initiated a traffic stop when Ramsey failed to stop at a stop sign and crossed the center line. During their interaction, Slayback observed that Ramsey was having a hard time answering basic questions, his hands were shaking and he was grinding his teeth.
Ramsey denied having anything illegal in his vehicle, but a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the driver’s side door. A subsequent search revealed a pipe and meth.
The entire interaction from the time Slayback initiated the traffic stop to the time he deployed the dog was approximately 11 minutes.
Ramsey was then arrested and read his Miranda rights. A second search uncovered scales and a white powdery substance later identified as meth.
The state subsequently charged Ramsey with felony counts of cocaine dealing and possession and meth dealing and possession, as well as a misdemeanor count of possession of paraphernalia. The cocaine charges were later dismissed.
Ramsey moved to suppress the items found in the vehicle, but the Hendricks Superior Court summarily denied his motion and then found him guilty of the meth and paraphernalia charges. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 35 years executed.
On appeal, Ramsey challenged the admission of the evidence found in his car, alleging violations of both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in full in James Earnest Ramsey v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2877.
Addressing the Fourth Amendment argument first, the COA differentiated Ramsey’s case from Wells v. State, 922 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied, on which Ramsey had relied.
“In Wells, officers held Wells at the scene of the traffic stop for forty minutes while the officers waited for the K9 officer and dog to arrive on the scene,” Judge Melissa May wrote. “Here, Sergeant Slayback was a K9 officer, and his dog, Zeke, was on scene during the entire traffic stop, and only eleven minutes elapsed between the initiation of the traffic stop and the dog sniff. During those eleven minutes, Sergeant Slayback investigated the status of Ramsey’s driving license, the commission of an alleged traffic violation, and the missing persons’ report.
“Upon determining Ramsey’s license was suspended, Sergeant Slayback directed Ramsey to ‘call someone to come get him because he wasn’t capable of driving at this point because of his license status,’” May wrote. “It is unclear from the record whether Ramsey called anyone to come get him, but no one had arrived to drive Ramsey and his vehicle from the scene by the time Sergeant Slayback began the dog sniff.
“Based thereon, we conclude the traffic stop was not unreasonably lengthened by the dog sniff,” the COA held.
Turning to the Indiana Constitution, the appellate court determined the factors under Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005), also weighed in Slayback’s favor.
“To summarize, Sergeant Slayback had a high degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that Ramsey violated traffic laws, including driving with a suspended license,” May wrote. “Additionally, the dog sniff of the vehicle was minimally intrusive. Finally, Sergeant Slayback’s law enforcement-related needs were high because there were multiple indicators that criminal activity was afoot.
“Based on the totality of those circumstances,” she wrote, “we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the evidence found in Ramsey’s vehicle because the search thereof did not violate Ramsey’s rights against illegal search and seizure under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.