Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man who was told he was free to leave the scene of a traffic stop before being searched and charged with possession of methamphetamine convinced the Court of Appeals of Indiana that his constitutional rights were violated, leading the court to order that his motion to suppress be granted.
In July 21, Kyle Budimir was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police in Monon.
The town marshal called for an officer with a K-9 and, while waiting for an officer with the county sheriff’s department to arrive, told Budimir he could leave.
But Budimir hadn’t left by the time the K-9 officer arrived. That officer instructed Budimir to stay, and a search uncovered meth, drug paraphernalia and marijuana.
Budimir was charged with Level 6 felony possession of meth, Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia with a prior conviction and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
Budimir moved to suppress the evidence recovered during the search, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
The White Superior Court denied his motion, and Budimir sought an interlocutory appeal.
The Court of Appeals sided with Budimir, ruling the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion.
“The degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that Budimir had engaged in criminal activity was minimal, at best,” the opinion says.
Prior to the K-9 signaling an alert on the car, the Court of Appeals said, there was “no reason whatsoever” to suspect Budimir had engaged in — or would engage in — criminal activity.
The appellate court also ruled the K-9 officer’s instruction to Budimir to “stick around” means the degree of intrusion wasn’t “nonexistent,” as the state had argued.
The K-9 officer “restricted Budimir’s ordinary activities,” the opinion says, including his freedom to leave the scene.
“Finally, the needs of law enforcement to detain Budimir were slight,” the opinion says, citing the first officer who had already assessed the situation and released Budimir from the scene.
“In light of the nonexistent degree of suspicion that Budimir was engaging in criminal activity, the relatively intrusive nature of the encounter, and the minimal needs of law enforcement, we cannot say that the State met its burden in proving that the search and seizure of Budimir was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances,” the Court of Appeals ruled in reversing the trial court’s judgment.
Judge Cale Bradford wrote the opinion. Judges Patricia Riley and Leanna Weissmann concurred.
The case is Kyle Budimir v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-17.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.