COA upholds admission of gun found on juvenile

IL file photo

A trial court did not err in admitting evidence seized as a result of a stop and pat-down of a juvenile, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed.

In February of last year, the Lawrence Police Department responded to a call reporting a domestic disturbance. Officer Khalid Brooks arrived to find the woman who made the call claiming her ex-boyfriend, Steven Rodes, had forced his way into her apartment, assaulted her and attempted to prevent her from calling the police.

The woman said she had a protective order against Rodes. He also had a warrant out for his arrest.

Brooks canvased the area because he knew the suspect left on foot without a vehicle. He observed a Black male matching the description the woman gave, who was later identified as K.W.

Brooks slowed his police vehicle after he passed K.W., but K.W. quickly crossed the street behind him. Brooks saw him again in a nearby park, sitting at a picnic table in a gazebo.

As Brooks approached, he radioed that he believed he had found Rodes. Brooks yelled “Steven” twice, but K.W. never responded.

Brooks then asked the man for his name, which he gave as K.W. Brooks asked if he had an ID on him, but K.W. said no.

Brooks then asked K.W. to stand up and asked if he had any weapons on him. K.W. said he did, and Brooks removed a gun and magazine from his waistband.

K.W. was arrested, and the state subsequently filed a petition alleging K.W. was a delinquent child for committing an act that if committed by an adult would be Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. K.W. remained in his parents’ care while the proceedings were pending.

K.W. filed a motion to suppress the gun and magazine found as part of his arrest. He argued that Brooks’ stop violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

That same day, the Marion Superior Court held a hearing on K.W.’s motion and denied it. The court then proceeded to a factfinding hearing and ultimately entered a true finding as to dangerous possession of a firearm.

The court held the dispositional hearing and closed the case without ordering any services for K.W. or his family.

The first issue K.W. brought to the appellate court was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the gun and magazine found on him because Brooks’ investigatory stop and pat-down violated his Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

Starting with the Fourth Amendment, the COA found no violation. The court pointed to the fact that K.W. crossed the street when Brooks drove by and that he matched the description of the man involved in the domestic disturbance.

“Moreover, Officer Brooks had reasonable suspicion to search K.W. for weapons,” Judge Melissa May wrote. “As part of a valid Terry stop, an officer is also entitled to take reasonable steps to ensure his own safety. … This includes conducting ‘a limited search of the individual’s outer clothing for weapons if the officer reasonably believes that the individual is armed and dangerous.’”

The appellate court likewise found no violation of the Indiana Constitution, ruling that “all of the Litchfield factors support the reasonableness of Officer Brooks’s initial Terry stop and pat down of K.W. … .”

The second issue K.W. raised on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the gun and magazine found on him because the state did not establish a sufficient chain of custody.

Also rejecting that argument, the COA held, “(T)he trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the gun and magazine found on K.W. because Officer Brooks testified the items were the gun and magazine he retrieved from K.W. on the day of the incident and they were in the same or substantially similar condition as they were the day of the incident,.”

Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Peter Foley concurred in K.W. v. State of Indiana, 22A-JV-3063.