search incident to arrest exception in Indiana

2024The court found the facts similar to those in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), and that the search of the pickup truck could not be justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

2024The court found the facts similar to those in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 , 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), and that the search of the pickup truck could not be justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

2015Notwithstanding whether Hardy’s arrest was, in fact, contemporaneous with the search of his person, our court has resolved that “[t]he critical issue is not when the arrest occurs but whether there was probable cause to arrest at the time of the search.” VanPelt, 760 N.E.2d at 222-23 (holding “that the search incident to arrest exception, which typically applies when a search and arrest are contemporaneous, also applies where, as here, law enforcement conducts a lawful search but merely delays an otherwise valid arrest until after consultation with a prosecutor”).

2013Second might be the search incident to arrest exception discussed above, whereby a police officer who lawfully arrests a person "may conduct a search of the arrestee’s person and the area within his or her control.” VanPelt, 760 N.E.2d at 222 .

2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2090 | August 13, 2019 Page 8 of 11 State, 726 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“Probable cause to arrest exists where the officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances that would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that a suspect has committed the criminal act”, and “[u]nder the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, a police officer may conduct a search of the defendant’s person….”), trans. denied.

2015“So long as probable Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1506-CR-538 | November 30, 2015 Page 9 of 20 cause exists to make an arrest, the fact that a suspect was not formally placed under arrest at the time of the search incident thereto will not invalidate the search.” Sebastian v. State, 726 N.E.2d 827, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. [18] Probable cause to arrest is established if a police officer “has knowledge of facts and circumstances that would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that a suspect has committed the criminal act in question.” VanPelt

2013“Evidence resulting from a search incident to a lawful arrest is admissible at trial.” Gibson v. State, 733 N.E.2d 945, 953 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

2003Gibson v. State, 733 N.E.2d 945, 953 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (a Fourth Amendment analysis citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)).

2010Indiana Code Section 35-33-1-5 defines an arrest as the "taking of a person into custody, that he may be held to answer for a crime." "An arrest occurs when a police officer 'interrupts the freedom of the accused an[d] restricts his liberty of movement.'" Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Sears v. State, 668 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind.1996)), trans. denied.

2008Probable cause to support a warrantless arrest exists when "at the time of the arrest, the officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the suspect committed a criminal act." Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied.

2020Muhammad contends the search of the vehicle was improper under the search incident to arrest exception because “it was unreasonable to believe that [he] (or the other occupants) would access the vehicle when they were already detained, placed in handcuffs, and put in separate squad cars.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. [15] The search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement was first articulated in the seminal case Chimel v. California, in which the United States Supreme Court held a search incident to arrest is justified only “for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within

2015The search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement “‘derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation.’” Id. (quoting Arizona v. Grant, 556 U.S. 332, 332 (2009)).

2024“As the text makes clear, ‘the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.”’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 , 126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006)). [13] With respect to Brummett’s argument under the search incident to arrest exception, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” United State

2024“As the text makes clear, ‘the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.”’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 , 126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006)). [13] With respect to Brummett’s argument under the search incident to arrest exception, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” United State

2023Id. [33] We have already determined that the removal of the pipes from Fritz’s pocket was permissible.

2017Id.

2024“As the text makes clear, ‘the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness.”’” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 , 126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006)). [13] With respect to Brummett’s argument under the search incident to arrest exception, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.” United State

2018The Court held that "[m]odern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse." Id. at 2488-2489 . [16] We next review Garcia v. State , 47 N.E.3d 1196 (Ind. 2016), a decision in which the Indiana Supreme Court discussed the search incident to arrest exception.

2012One such exception is the search incident to arrest. 1 This exception to the warrant requirement was articulated in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), where the Court held that a search incident to arrest may include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Then, in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 455-57 , 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2861-62 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the Court was asked to consider whether

2012One such exception is the search incident to arrest. 1 This exception to the warrant requirement was articulated in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), where the Court held that a search incident to arrest may include “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Then, in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 455-57 , 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2861-62 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the Court was asked to consider whether

2016Id.

2010Indiana Code Section 35-33-1-5 defines an arrest as the "taking of a person into custody, that he may be held to answer for a crime." "An arrest occurs when a police officer 'interrupts the freedom of the accused an[d] restricts his liberty of movement.'" Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (quoting Sears v. State, 668 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind.1996)), trans. denied.

2012Id.

2002Stevens v. State, 701 N.E.2d 277, 280 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

2024In Kyles v. State, 888 N.E.2d 809, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 6 At the time of the traffic stop in the present case, Ind. Code § 35-33-1-1 provided that “[a] law enforcement officer may arrest a person when the officer has . . . probable cause to believe the person is committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence.” (Subsequently amended by Pub.

2024The automobile exception is grounded in two notions: “1) a vehicle is readily moved and therefore the evidence may disappear while a warrant is being obtained, and 2) citizens have lower expectations of privacy in their vehicles than in their homes.” State v. Hobbs, 933 N.E.2d 1281, 1285 (Ind. 2010) (citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 , 105 S. Ct. 2066 (1985)).

2024Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-914 | November 7, 2024 Page 12 of 27 and are found in a non-residential area.” Id. (citing Carney, 471 U.S. at 392 - 393, 105 S. Ct. 2066 ).

2024According to this Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-1298 | March 12, 2024 Page 25 of 27 exception, “once a lawful arrest has been made, authorities may conduct a full search of the arrestee for weapons or concealed evidence.” Edwards v. State, 759 N.E.2d 626, 629 (Ind. 2001) (quotation omitted). “[A]s long as probable cause exists to make an arrest, the fact that a suspect was not formally placed under arrest at the time of the search incident thereto will not invalidate the search.” I.G., 177 N.E.3d at 78 (quotation omitted); see also VanPelt v. State, 760 N.E.2d 218, 223 (Ind. Ct.

2020See, e.g., Easley, 166 13 The only case cited by the majority in support of its conclusion that the search incident to arrest exception cannot apply here is Wilson v. State, 96 N.E.3d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied, for its holding that an officer lacked probable cause (as well as reasonable suspicion) to arrest when suspect had merely been observed exiting his vehicle in a high crime area and reaching back into the vehicle.

2018See Northrop v. Trippett , 265 F.3d 372 , 379 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a duffle bag was lawfully searched incident to arrest where the defendant removed the bag from his shoulder and placed it at his feet, an officer stopped the defendant near the bag and then placed the defendant under arrest at that same location, and the bag was searched almost immediately), reh'g en banc denied , cert. denied , 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1358 , 152 L.Ed.2d 354 (2002) ; State v. Mercier , 883 N.W.2d 478 , 492-493 (N.D. 2016) (upholding a search where the defendant had the backpack in his actual possessio

2018See Northrop v. Trippett , 265 F.3d 372 , 379 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a duffle bag was lawfully searched incident to arrest where the defendant removed the bag from his shoulder and placed it at his feet, an officer stopped the defendant near the bag and then placed the defendant under arrest at that same location, and the bag was searched almost immediately), reh'g en banc denied , cert. denied , 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1358 , 152 L.Ed.2d 354 (2002) ; State v. Mercier , 883 N.W.2d 478 , 492-493 (N.D. 2016) (upholding a search where the defendant had the backpack in his actual possessio

2018See Northrop v. Trippett , 265 F.3d 372 , 379 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a duffle bag was lawfully searched incident to arrest where the defendant removed the bag from his shoulder and placed it at his feet, an officer stopped the defendant near the bag and then placed the defendant under arrest at that same location, and the bag was searched almost immediately), reh'g en banc denied , cert. denied , 535 U.S. 955 , 122 S.Ct. 1358 , 152 L.Ed.2d 354 (2002) ; State v. Mercier , 883 N.W.2d 478 , 492-493 (N.D. 2016) (upholding a search where the defendant had the backpack in his actual possessio