Amari D. Lyons v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 25 2019, 10:11 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael C. Borschel Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Amari D. Lyons, July 25, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-254
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa F. Borges,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Anne Flannelly,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-1709-F5-37350
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] Amari D. Lyons appeals his conviction for carrying a handgun without a
license, a Level 5 felony. Lyons contends that the trial court committed
reversible error by admitting evidence obtained during a warrantless search.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On the evening of September 27, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department (IMPD) officers responded to a report of an attempted robbery
with a firearm at an apartment complex. IMPD Officers Mollie
Johannigsmeier and John Dicicco arrived at about the same time in their
marked police vehicles. Zane Dickson, the 911 caller, had been involved in a
meetup for sale of goods to another individual arranged on the website OfferUp
when the attempted robbery occurred. Dickson ran up to the officers and
frantically told them that a black male had pointed a rifle at him in the parking
lot. According to Dickson, the suspect then fled toward the apartment building.
Dickson directed the officers to speak with Lyons, a possible witness, who was
in the parking lot.
[3] Lyons informed Officer Johannigsmeier that he had seen someone running
away from the apartment building but had no further information. After
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 2 of 9
speaking briefly with Lyons, the officers moved Dickson to the apartment
leasing office to calm him down and question him further. While moving
Dickson, the officers noticed Lyons driving a silver Chevy Impala towards the
complex exit. As Lyons drove off, Dickson told Officer Johannigsmeier that
after the attempted robbery, the suspect had tried to enter the silver Impala.
[4] Five minutes later, Lyons returned to the parking lot in the silver Impala.
When Lyons got out of his car, Officer Dicicco approached and said he needed
to speak with him. Officer Johanningsmeier joined Officer Dicicco and asked
Lyons for additional information about the robbery. Lyons told Officer
Johanningsmeier that he knew the suspect’s name, that the suspect often spent
time in the area, and that the suspect had run off immediately after the
attempted robbery.
[5] While Officer Johanningsmeier spoke with Lyons, Officer Dicicco shined a
flashlight through the windows of the Impala and saw a handgun on the driver-
side floorboard as well as a loaded magazine in the cupholder. He alerted
Officer Johanningsmeier, who placed Lyons in handcuffs. A pat-down revealed
an empty firearm holster on Lyons’s hip and a tactical light for a handgun in his
pocket. Reading the serial number of the firearm through the passenger
window, officers ran checks on both the gun and Lyons and found that he did
not have a valid handgun license and that he had a previous conviction for
carrying a handgun without a license. IMPD Officers Nicholas Rainbolt and
Christopher Dian, who had arrived to assist, retrieved the weapon and searched
Lyons’s car. The handgun was a loaded Glock 19 pistol with a 30-round
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 3 of 9
magazine. The officers also found a rifle magazine in the glove box, a 15-round
magazine in one of the cupholders, and a mask in the trunk.
[6] Lyons was charged with carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A
misdemeanor, and carrying a handgun without a license while having a prior
conviction for the same offense, a Level 5 Felony. Following a bifurcated trial,
Lyons was convicted of the Level 5 Felony and sentenced to four years in
Marion County Community Corrections’ work release program.
Discussion and Decision
[7] On appeal, Lyons argues that the trial court abused its discretion and
committed reversible error by admitting evidence in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the
Indiana Constitution. Specifically, he contends the trial court erred in
admitting the handgun discovered in the vehicle in violation of his rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Standard of Review
[8] Lyons’s appeal comes after the completion of his trial; therefore, it is properly
viewed as an admission of evidence issue rather than an appeal of the denial of
his motion to suppress. Our review here is based on a standard similar to that
used in other sufficiency of evidence issues. Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356,
358 (Ind. 2005). We will not reweigh the evidence and “we will consider the
evidence favorable to the trial court’s ruling, as well as substantial
uncontradicted evidence to the contrary, to decide whether the evidence is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 4 of 9
sufficient to support the ruling.” Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 935 (2006).
We will reverse only “if a ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.”
Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).
Fourth Amendment Analysis
[9] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals
against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents. “A search
without a warrant requires the State to prove an exception to the warrant
requirement applicable at the time of the search.” Holder, 847 N.E.2d at 935.
[10] Not all encounters between police and individuals implicate Fourth
Amendment protections. “Consensual encounters in which a citizen
voluntarily interacts with an officer do not compel Fourth Amendment
analysis.” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 261 (Ind. 2013). A stop remains at the
consensual level based on whether a reasonable person would have felt they
were free to leave. State v. Calmes, 894 N.E.2d 199, 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Factors to be considered in determining whether a reasonable person felt free to
leave include “(1) the threatening presence of several officers, (2) the display of
a weapon by an officer, (3) the physical touching of the person, or (4) the use of
language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officers request
might be compelled.” Id.[11] Nonconsensual encounters typically fall into one of two categories, brief
investigative stops and full arrests. Id. With respect to the former, the Supreme
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 5 of 9
Court has held that a police officer can briefly detain an individual for
investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal
activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). A full arrest, in which the
individual is detained for longer than a short time, requires probable cause. Id.[12] Lyons argues that his second interaction with police constituted a
nonconsensual encounter. We disagree with Lyons as to the nature of the
encounter at that point. That is, during this second encounter, police sought
further information from Lyons after Dickson informed them that the suspect
had tried to enter the silver Impala that Lyons was seen driving. The
conversation prior to the discovery of the handgun pertained to Lyons’s status
as a potential witness. Nothing about the nature of the second encounter differs
from Lyons’s first conversation, which he agrees was consensual. The number
of police present did not increase, nor did the police display their weapons,
physically touch him, or restrain his movement. Officer Dicicco said that he
needed to speak with Lyons, but gave no reasonable indication that Lyons was
under any form of detention, only that he wanted to ask more questions about
what Lyons may have seen.
[13] Only after Officer Dicicco spotted a firearm in open view 1 in the car Lyons had
been driving did the encounter evolve into a Terry stop. Considering Dickson’s
1
The “open view” principle applies when “a police officer sees contraband from an area that is not
constitutionally protected” in an area that is protected, such as a home or a vehicle. Sayre v. State, 471
N.E.2d 708, 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984). For a police officer to lawfully seize contraband in open view, either a
search warrant or a justifiable exception to warrantless seizure is required. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 6 of 9
account that the suspect was armed and had tried to enter the Impala, Officers
Dicicco and Johanningsmeier then acted on reasonable suspicion that Lyons
may have been involved in the attempted robbery. The officers’ brief detention
of Lyons while they searched his person and ran a check on the firearm was
acceptable under Terry as part of their investigation.
[14] The subsequent search of the vehicle and seizure of the handgun fell within the
automobile exception. “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to
believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to
search the vehicle without more.” Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940
(1996). With regards to the “readily mobile” component, the Indiana Supreme
Court has held “a vehicle that is temporarily in police control or otherwise
confined is generally considered to be readily mobile and subject to the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement if probable cause is present.”
Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2005). Police did not seize the
handgun until it was determined that Lyons did not have a license for it and
that he had a prior conviction for illegally possessing a firearm, thereby giving
them the requisite probable cause. As such, the seizure of the firearm from
inside the vehicle did not violate Lyons’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Article 1 Section 11 Analysis
[15] Although Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution contains identical
language to the Fourth Amendment, we interpret the language independently
and separately. Litchfield, 824 N.E.2d at 359. Our interpretation is based on an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 7 of 9
assessment of the reasonableness of the actions of the police officer when the
totality of the circumstances are considered. Id. Reasonableness is determined
by balancing: “1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a
violation has occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or
seizure imposes on the citizen’s ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law
enforcement needs.” Id. Indiana courts have held that the Fourth Amendment
automobile exception applies during an Article 1, Section 11 analysis. Myers v.
State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1154 (Ind. 2005).
[16] Regarding the Litchfield factors, the police on the scene had a high degree of
concern and suspicion that an armed robbery had occurred and they had been
told by Dickson that the suspect had attempted to enter Lyons’s vehicle.
Lyons’s interaction with police was minimally intrusive up until the handgun
was discovered, when he was handcuffed and briefly detained as a suspect. The
seizure of the handgun from Lyons’s car falls within the established automobile
exception. The totality of the circumstances shows that the actions taken by
police were based on the pressing need to investigate an attempted armed
robbery and recover the potential weapon or weapons used in the crime, which
outweighed the intrusion into Lyons’s activities. Therefore, the seizure of the
handgun from the vehicle did not violate Lyons’s rights under Article 1, Section
11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 8 of 9
Conclusion
[17] The warrantless search of Lyons’s vehicle did not violate the search and seizure
provisions of either the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 of the
Indiana Constitution. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
the handgun into evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Vaidik C.J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-254 | July 25, 2019 Page 9 of 9