Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man charged with unlawful possession of a firearm after being stopped while walking along the interstate failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that the stop and seizure of his gun violated his constitutional rights.
In the early morning hours of June 28, 2021, Indiana State Police Trooper Scott Probasco received a dispatch regarding a person walking along Interstate 465.
When Probasco responded, he encountered Philip Hutson, who said he was walking back to his vehicle after his car ran out of gas. Hutson was carrying a plastic container and not wearing a shirt, and Probasco observed what appeared to be a handgun sticking out of Hutson’s waistband.
When Probasco asked Hutson if he had a handgun, Hutson began acting nervously and asked if he was going to jail. Probasco then handcuffed Hutson and removed a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun from his waistband. Hutson also admitted that he had past felony convictions.
Hutson was read his Miranda rights and Probasco took him to a nearby gas station, where a jail van took him to Marion County Jail.
The state subsequently charged Hutson with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. He moved to suppress the evidence found during Probasco’s stop, claiming his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution were violated.
After holding a hearing on the motion, the Marion Superior Court denied it and Hutson moved to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.
The trial court certified the order, but the appellate court affirmed the denial of Hutson’s motion to suppress.
“… (E)ven though Hutson was walking along the shoulder of the interstate rather than in the middle of it, Trooper Probasco had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop him for committing the traffic infraction of walking along the interstate,” Judge Melissa May wrote. “Based thereon, we conclude Trooper Probasco’s stop of Hutson did not violation Hutson’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
Likewise, Probasco’s seizure of the gun was not a constitutional violation because “Hutson was on the shoulder of I-465 at 2:00 a.m., and Trooper Probasco needed to place Hutson into his police cruiser to safely remove him from the interstate.”
Hutson advanced similar arguments to support his claims under the Indiana Constitution, but the COA rejected those arguments, as well.
“Trooper Probasco observed Huston commit a traffic infraction and enforcing the traffic laws is a legitimate law enforcement need,” May wrote. She added, “Trooper Probasco also had a compelling need to seize the handgun for his own safety because he was about to transport Hutson in his police vehicle.”
Judges Patricia Riley and L. Mark Bailey concurred.
The case is Philip D. Hutson, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2240.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.