COA affirms admission of marijuana evidence after man consents to search

The denial of a man’s motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found on his person following a consented search during a traffic stop will stand, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a Monday decision.

After stopping a truck that had two traffic infractions, Indiana State Police Trooper Matthew Hatchett instructed the occupants to exit the truck and told two passengers they were free to go. The driver and both passengers chose to stay to wait for rides, prompting Hatchett to ask for their consent to search their persons for officer-safety reasons.

One of the passengers, Jeremy Cox, who was not restrained in any fashion and was told that he did not have to consent to the warrantless search, gave his consent. But upon the search, the trooper uncovered a small socket containing marijuana.

Cox was charged with Class C misdemeanor illegal possession of paraphernalia, and he subsequently moved to suppress evidence of the paraphernalia on the grounds that it was discovered in violation of the state and federal constitutions. The Brown Circuit Court denied his motion, a jury found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced to eight days behind bars.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, first finding that a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the officers’ inquiries to search and go about his business. However, it noted that while Cox did not do so, his fellow passenger did so with no negative consequences.

The appellate court also concluded that Cox was not in custody at any point during the encounter in question.

“In summary, the record indicates that Trooper Hatchett simply approached Cox and asked if he could search him, which does not even implicate the Fourth Amendment. … We conclude that the totality of circumstances indicates that Cox’s consent was knowing and voluntary,” Chief Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the appellate court.

The panel ruled similarly on Cox’s argument under Article 1, Sections 11 and 13 of the Indiana Constitution in Jeremy D. Cox v. State of Indiana, 20A-CR-899.

“Because Cox was never in custody, the (Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975)) requirement to advise him he had the right to consult with an attorney before consenting to a search of his person was not triggered. The trial court did not err in denying Cox’s motion to suppress on the alleged ground that the search of his person violated Article 1, Sections 11 and 13, of the Indiana Constitution,” Bradford wrote.