Kevin Walker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 23, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-153
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 23 2018, 9:25 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin Walker, August 23, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-153 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David J. Certo, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge The Honorable David Hooper, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G12-1610-CM-42103

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Kevin Walker appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of a

synthetic drug. In challenging his conviction, Walker contends that the trial

court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On October 25, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Pflum

approached Walker after observing that Walker’s moped was illegally parked

on the sidewalk in violation of a city ordinance. Officer Pflum asked Walker

for his identification. Walker complied with this request but started to act

nervously. Walker approached the moped and acted as if he was trying to keep

Officer Pflum away from it. When Officer Matthew Carroll arrived, he

observed a brown wrapper containing what both he and Officer Pflum

recognized as synthetic marijuana on the sidewalk next to the moped. Officer

Pflum placed Walker under arrest for possession of synthetic marijuana. A

subsequent search of the moped revealed additional synthetic marijuana.

[3] The next day, the State charged Walker with Class A misdemeanor possession

of a synthetic drug. During the January 5, 2018 bench trial, Walker moved to

suppress the evidence stemming from his arrest, arguing that Officers Pflum and

Carroll did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court denied

Walker’s motion, concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Walker. The trial court subsequently found Walker guilty and sentenced him to

a one-year suspended term.

Discussion and Decision [4] Walker contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

his motion to suppress. However, because Walker did not seek an interlocutory

appeal after the denial of his motion to suppress, “the issue presented is more

appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by

admitting the evidence at trial.” Bentley v. State, 846 N.E.2d 300, 304 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2006), trans. denied.

A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, we will reverse a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence only when the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

[5] Generally, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a

warrantless search. Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 1998). One

exception to this rule is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Gibson v. State, 733

N.E.2d 945, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Evidence resulting from a search

incident to a lawful arrest is admissible at trial.” Id. However, “[a]n unlawful

arrest cannot be the foundation of a lawful search.” Id. “Evidence obtained as

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 3 of 5 a direct result of a search conducted after an illegal arrest is excluded under the

fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. at 954.

[6] Walker argues that his arrest was unlawful because Officers Pflum and Carroll

lacked probable cause to arrest him. “Probable cause exists where the facts and

circumstances within the officers’ knowledge are sufficient in themselves to

warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the person being arrested

has committed or is in the process of committing an offense.” Jackson v. State,

597 N.E.2d 950, 956–57 (Ind. 1992). “The amount of evidence necessary to

satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is determined on

a case-by-case basis.” Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[7] Walker claims that in order to have probable cause to arrest him, Officers Pflum

and Carroll had to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the

synthetic marijuana found on the ground near his moped. We agree with the

State’s assertion that while such proof would have been required to sustain a

conviction for possession of that synthetic marijuana, the question on review in

this case is not whether the evidence would be sufficient to sustain a conviction,

but rather whether it was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that a

suspect has committed a crime. We conclude that it was.

[8] Officer Pflum testified that when he approached Walker, Walker appeared

nervous and acted as if he was trying to keep him away from the moped.

Officer Carroll observed what both he and Officer Pflum recognized as

synthetic marijuana laying on the sidewalk next to the moped. Walker’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 4 of 5 actions combined with the close proximity of the contraband to Walker’s

moped are sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest him. Having

concluded that Walker’s arrest was valid, we further conclude that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence stemming from

Walker’s arrest.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 5 of 5