William Michael Bean II v. State of Indiana ( 2020 )

FILED
Feb 13 2020, 10:12 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John L. Tompkins Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Tompkins Law Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Matthew R. Mackenzie
Megan M. Smith
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Michael Bean II, February 13, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-225
v. Appeal from the Hancock Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Terry K. Snow,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
30C01-1709-F3-1956
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 1 of 21
[1] William Michael Bean II appeals his convictions of Level 3 felony dealing in a
schedule II controlled substance 1 and Level 4 felony dealing in a schedule IV
controlled substance. 2 Bean raises one issue on appeal, which we expand and
restate as: (1) whether the officers lawfully initiated a traffic stop, and (2)
whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence discovered during searches
of Bean’s person in conjunction with the traffic stop. We also address sua sponte
whether searches of Bean’s person were justifiable as searches incident to arrest.
We reverse.
Facts and Procedural History 3
[2] On September 19, 2017, Detective Jacob Lewis and Detective David Wood,
who were narcotics investigators with the Hancock County Sheriff’s
Department, saw Bean at a Speedway gas station located at I-70 and 600
County Road West. Detective Wood had his police dog in his car. The
detectives did not observe Bean engage in any suspicious activity at the gas
station, but they recognized him as a suspected narcotics user and dealer.
Detective Wood left the gas station and travelled along 500 County Road North
because he knew that was the road Bean would likely travel in order to drive
home from the gas station. When Bean left the Speedway station, Detective
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-2.
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-3.
3
We held oral argument on October 21, 2019, in Montezuma, Indiana. We thank the faculty and staff of
Riverton Parke High School for their hospitality and commend counsel for their able presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 2 of 21
Lewis followed him “to see if he was involved in any narcotics activity that I
know him to be involved in [sic].” (Tr. Vol. II at 7.)
[3] When Bean’s vehicle passed where Detective Wood was stationed, Detective
Wood determined Bean was traveling sixty miles per hour on an unposted
county roadway, where the speed limit defaults to fifty-five miles per hour.
Detective Wood notified Detective Lewis of Bean’s infraction, and Detective
Lewis initiated a traffic stop. Detective Wood and another deputy also arrived
at the scene of the stop. The officers directed Bean to exit his vehicle and to
come back to Detective Lewis’ vehicle because the officers knew from previous
interactions with Bean that he typically carried a weapon. Bean complied with
the officers’ commands. Detective Lewis decided to perform a pat down
search, and Bean consented to the search. Detective Lewis did not find any
weapons and asked Bean for his driver’s license and vehicle registration.
Detective Lewis then returned to his police vehicle to complete paperwork
associated with Bean’s traffic infraction.
[4] Detective Wood asked Bean if he could search Bean’s vehicle, and Bean
consented. Detective Wood observed what he believed to be marijuana shake 4
on the passenger seat and floorboard of Bean’s vehicle. Detective Wood did
not collect the material on the seat or test it to determine if it was in fact
4
Detective Wood described marijuana shake as “small marijuana pieces . . . and seeds.” (Tr. Vol. II at 35.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 3 of 21
marijuana. He also did not walk his police dog around Bean’s vehicle to see if
the dog alerted to the presence of drugs.
[5] After the vehicle search, Detective Wood reported to Detective Lewis that he
found marijuana shake inside Bean’s vehicle, and Detective Lewis relayed that
he observed Bean shifting his weight and “crossing himself or reaching towards
his groin” while Detective Wood was searching his vehicle. (Id. at 12.) The
detectives observed that Bean was sweating and breathing heavily, and his
hands were shaking. The two decided to conduct a further search of Bean’s
person. Detective Wood asked Bean to remove his shoes, Bean complied, and
Detective Wood did not find anything illegal in his shoes.
[6] Detective Wood then conducted a second pat down search of Bean. Detective
Wood did not ask for Bean’s consent before conducting the second pat down
search. During this search, Bean pinched his legs together. After additional
consultation with Detective Lewis, Detective Wood asked Bean to shake out
his pants. Bean started to jump up and down rather than shake out the front of
his pants. A bag of pills fell out of Bean’s pants. Detective Lewis recognized
the bag to contain hydrocodone pills and alprazolam pills, a generic for Xanax,
because of the markings on the pills. The officers arrested Bean, but they did
not issue a citation or warning for his speeding infraction.
[7] The State charged Bean with Level 3 felony dealing in a schedule II controlled
substance (hydrocodone), Level 4 felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 4 of 21
substance (alprazolam), and Level 6 felony maintaining a common nuisance. 5
The State did not charge Bean with possession of marijuana based on the
alleged shake in the car. On January 4, 2018, Bean filed a motion to suppress
the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and subsequent searches. The
court held a hearing on the motion to suppress on February 8, 2018. The court
denied the motion to suppress on March 5, 2018, and the matter proceeded to a
bench trial on December 4, 2018.
[8] At trial, Bean renewed his objection to the search, and the court overruled his
objection. The State introduced evidence of text messages between Bean and a
friend in which Bean agreed to sell his friend “dones,” which Detective Lewis
testified is a slang term for hydrocodone. (Id. at 79-81.) The court found Bean
guilty of both dealing counts and not guilty of the maintaining a common
nuisance count. The court sentenced Bean to nine years for dealing in a
Schedule II controlled substance, with five years executed in the Indiana
Department of Correction and four years suspended to probation, and five
years for dealing in a Schedule IV controlled substance. The court ordered the
sentences to run concurrently.
Discussion and Decision
5
Ind. Code § 35-45-1-5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 5 of 21
[9] While Bean moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the traffic stop
and subsequent searches, his motion was denied, and the case proceeded to
trial. Therefore, Bean appeals from the admission of the evidence at trial. See
Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621, 624 (Ind. 2017). The trial court has broad
discretion when ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and we usually review
such decisions for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs “if
the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts, and the error effects
substantial rights.” Sams v. State, 71 N.E.3d 372, 376 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
However, the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a pure question of law
that we review de novo. Id.
1. Traffic Stop
[10] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 6 provides that
[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
The protections of the Fourth Amendment have been extended to the states by
virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. N.W. v. State, 834 N.E.2d 159, 162 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Under the Fourth Amendment, “a traffic stop of a
6
Bean does not assert a claim under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 6 of 21
vehicle and temporary detention of its occupants constitutes a ‘seizure.’”
McLain v. State, 963 N.E.2d 662, 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Police officers are
charged with enforcing traffic laws and are authorized to stop drivers they
observe commit traffic infractions. Datzek v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1149, 1156 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005) (holding stop of suspected drunk driver after driver failed to use
turn signal was lawful), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Therefore, the officer’s traffic
stop of Bean was lawful because Bean was traveling five miles above the speed
limit.
2. Initial Pat Down Search, Vehicle Search and Second Pat
Down Search
[11] Generally, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from warrantless
searches. Tumblin v. State, 736 N.E.2d 317, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans.
denied. However, there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement. Id.For one, officers can search a person or a vehicle without a warrant if the
subject consents to the search. Camp v. State, 751 N.E.2d 299, 302 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2001) (“When an individual gives permission to a search of either his
person or property, governmental intrusion thereon is presumably not
unreasonable”), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Additionally, “when the officer has
reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, the
officer may conduct a limited frisk of the individual detained.” Tumblin, 736
N.E.2d at 320; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The officer does not
need to be certain that a person is armed, but the circumstances must be such
that a reasonably prudent person would believe either his safety or the safety of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 7 of 21
others was in danger. Wright v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1223, 1232 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002). “In determining whether the officer acted reasonably under the
circumstances, due weight must be given, not to the officer’s inchoate and
unparticularized suspicions, but to the specific reasonable inferences that the
officer is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.” Id.[12] Here, Detective Wood testified he had observed Bean carrying a pistol on
approximately five prior occasions. Detective Lewis testified Bean had a gun at
a prior traffic stop and there was a “brief standoff.” (Tr. Vol. II at 53.)
Therefore, Detective Lewis’ initial pat down search of Bean was constitutional
because Bean consented to the search and because the officers had a reasonable
belief Bean might be armed and dangerous due to their previous interactions
with him. Cf. Westmoreland v. State, 965 N.E.2d 163, 166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
(holding officer did not reasonably believe suspect was armed and dangerous
before ordering him out of the car and frisking him during routine traffic stop).
[13] Furthermore, Bean gave officers permission to search his vehicle, and therefore,
it was constitutional for Detective Wood to do so. See McIlquham v. State, 10
N.E.3d 506, 514 (Ind. 2014) (search conducted with consent comports with
Fourth Amendment). However, Bean did not consent to the second pat down
search, and he removed his shoes and jumped up and down because police
ordered him to do so. The State argues Bean’s nervousness and movements
while Detective Wood searched his vehicle justified Detective Wood’s request
that he submit to a second pat down search, remove his shoes, and shake out
the front of his pants. The State maintains these additional measures were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 8 of 21
necessary for officer safety. At trial, Detective Wood testified the second pat
down search was for “[o]fficer safety based on the . . . movements to his groin
area and the . . . known history of Mr. Bean carrying a firearm.” (Tr. Vol. II at
36.)
[14] However, we note Detective Wood also testified that he ordered Bean to
remove his shoes because he thought Bean was hiding narcotics in them and
not for officer safety. 7 Further, Detective Lewis’ initial pat down search of
Bean did not reveal the presence of any weapons. While Detective Lewis
testified that his first pat down search was “poor,” he did sweep Bean’s beltline
and acknowledged Bean’s “weapon has always been on his hip.” (Id. at 55.)
Also, as Bean’s counsel observed during oral argument, it does not make sense
to direct a person that is the subject of a search for weapons to manipulate his
own clothing in the process of the search because doing so could allow the
person to access the weapon and possibly use it. Considering these facts, the
7
The following exchange occurred during Bean’s cross-examination of Detective Wood at trial:
[Counsel:] . . .[A]s I saw on the video, you went back to Mr. Bean and asked him to remove his
shoes.
[Wood:] Yes.
[Counsel:] And what was the purpose of that?
[Wood:] . . . I asked Mr. Bean to remove his shoes [because] often times narcotics can be hidden
in people’s---people’s shoes and socks.
[Counsel:] Okay. And so what was the reason that you had him remove his shoes?
[Wood:] To see if he was concealing anything in his---in his shoes.
[Counsel:] Okay. And that was not for officer safety at that point. Correct?
[Wood:] Correct.
(Tr. Vol. II at 45.)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 9 of 21
officers lacked a reasonable belief that Bean was armed and dangerous when
they discovered the bags of pills. See Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 267 n.19
(Ind. 2013) (pat down search not justified without specific and articulable facts
that suspect was armed and dangerous).
3. Search Incident to Arrest
[15] The dissent would hold that the discovery of marijuana shake in the vehicle
justified the subsequent searches of Bean’s person as searches incident to arrest.
See dissent at 3 (“The discovery of the marijuana seeds, the possession of which
is a crime, on its own is enough to establish probable cause to search Bean.”).
A search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement.
Wilkinson v. State, 70 N.E.3d 392, 403 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). An officer may
conduct a warrantless search of an arrestee’s person and the area in the person’s
immediate control if the officer has probable cause to make an arrest. Id.“Probable cause for an arrest exists if at the time of the arrest the officer has
knowledge of facts and circumstances which would warrant a man of
reasonable caution to believe that the suspect has committed the criminal act in
question.” Id.[16] At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Detective Wood testified:
[Bean’s Counsel]: All right. What happened as a result of the
[vehicle] search?
[Wood]: Um—I did observe um—some, what’s referred to as
marijuana shake, small pieces of marijuana on the passenger seat
and some seeds I identified to be marijuana seeds.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 10 of 21
[Counsel: Did you collect those items?
[Wood]: I did not.
[Counsel]: Did you test those items to determine if they in fact
were any type of narcotic?
[Wood]: I did not.
(Tr. Vol. II at 19.) On direct examination at trial, Detective Wood testified that
when he searched the front passenger seat area, he “did locate some, what is
referred to as marijuana shake, which is small marijuana pieces um, and seeds.”
(Id. at 35.) On cross examination, the following exchange occurred:
[Bean’s Counsel]: And you told The [sic] Court today that uh,
you believe that you saw something in the vehicle that may have
been marijuana shake, which I understand may be very loose
small particles or leaves on the floorboard. Is that right?
[Wood]: Correct.
[Counsel]: And maybe a seed or two in the driver’s seat. Is that
right?
[Wood]: Correct.
[Counsel]: All right. What steps did you take to test those items
to see if they were in fact a controlled substance like marijuana?
[Wood]: I did not. They were just identified given my training
and experience.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 11 of 21
[Counsel]: Okay. So you did nothing to confirm that one way or
another.
[Wood]: Correct.
[Counsel]: All right. Upon discovering the marijuana shake or
seed, uh, was Mr. Bean at that point placed under arrest?
[Wood]: No.
(Id. at 43.)
[17] Detective Wood did not recover the suspected marijuana shake from the
vehicle. The substance was never tested to determine whether it was
marijuana. Even though Detective Wood had a police dog in his car, he did
not have the dog sniff Bean’s vehicle to detect the presence of illegal drugs.
Detective Wood did not testify regarding any distinguishing characteristics of
the substance that led him to the conclusion that the substance was marijuana.
Rather, Detective Wood just testified as to his conclusion that the substance
was marijuana “given [his] training and experience.” (Id.) Probable cause
cannot be based solely on a conclusory assertion. For example, an affidavit that
contains only “bare conclusory information, lacking underlying facts, cannot
suffice as probable cause upon which to base a search warrant.” Bryant v. State,
655 N.E.2d 103, 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding search warrant affidavit
containing speculative conclusions did not establish probable cause).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 12 of 21
[18] The cases cited by the dissent are readily distinguishable from the case at bar.
In Vasquez v. State, testimony established the police officers were familiar with
the characteristics of toluene, which routinely is identified based on its smell
and appearance, and the confiscated substance looked and smelled like toluene.
741 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. 2001). In Yoakum v. State, the officers testified that
they had experience recognizing synthetic marijuana and that the recovered
substance looked like synthetic marijuana, smelled like synthetic marijuana,
and was packaged in a ripped plastic baggie. 95 N.E.3d 169, 175 (Ind. Ct. App.
2018). In each of these cases, the officers did not simply state the identity of the
substance; they described characteristics of the substance (i.e. look, smell,
packaging, etc.) that allowed them to identify it. The State did not elicit any
similar testimony from Detective Wood. 8
[19] In Edwards v. State, officers obtained a search warrant based on items they found
during a search of the defendant’s trash. 832 N.E.2d 1072, 1074 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005). These items consisted of “balled up plastic wrap which contained
marijuana particles, empty plastic wrap boxes, bubble wrap, and an empty tape
roll.” Id. At trial, a detective testified that he had been certified as a drug
recognition expert, that he was able to recognize marijuana when he saw it, and
“that he believed the discovery of the plastic wrap was significant because
individuals will receive shipments of marijuana in large packages and then
8
In contrast, Detective Lewis testified that he was able to identify the pills found on Bean’s person by the
markings on the pills. He explained that in his training and experience as a narcotics detective he had
identified pills based on their markings multiple times in the past.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 13 of 21
repackage it in smaller increments for sale.” Id. at 1078. In Boggs v. State,
sufficient evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for possession of
marijuana because two officers testified “the green, leafy substance found was
consistent with marijuana,” one of the officers stated he “had ‘no doubt’ that
the substance was marijuana,” and the defendant admitted he possessed a small
amount of marijuana and used cigarette tubes found in his home to smoke it.
928 N.E.2d 855, 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.
[20] In each of these cases, unlike in the instant case, there was evidence beyond the
officer’s bare assertion that a substance was a prohibited substance. 9 We
accordingly hold the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Bean for
marijuana possession after the search of his vehicle 10 and the search incident to
arrest exception does not apply in this circumstance. See Wilson v. State, 96
N.E.3d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding officer lacked probable cause to
arrest suspect when the suspect exited a car parked in a high crime area then
reached back into the vehicle), trans. denied.
9
The dissent also references Danner v. State, 931 N.E.2d 421, 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding observation
of marijuana in plain view on the passenger seat of vehicle was sufficient to provide probable cause to
conduct warrantless vehicle search), trans. denied, and State v. Hawkins, 766 N.E.2d 749, 751-52 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002) (holding odor of burnt marijuana gave officer probable cause to conduct warrantless search of
automobile), trans. denied. However, these cases are distinguishable from the case at bar because they involve
vehicle searches rather than searches incident to arrest. Vehicles are readily mobile, and people possess a
lower expectation of privacy regarding their contents. Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1146, 1151 (Ind. 2005).
10
In fact, Detective Lewis referred to the shake as “basically irrelevant” because the officers “didn’t do
anything with it.” (Tr. Vol. II at 67.) The trial court found the search incident to arrest exception did not
justify the shoe search, second pat-down search, or the request for Bean to shake out the front of his pants
because Bean was not under arrest at that point.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 14 of 21
[21] We hold Bean’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated by
the second pat down search of Bean, the request that Bean remove his shoes,
and the order that Bean shake out the front of his pants. Therefore, the
evidence obtained during the same should not have been admitted at trial. See
Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“fruit of the
poisonous tree” doctrine bars illegally obtained evidence from admission), trans.
denied. 11
Conclusion
[22] After conducting one pat down search and searching Bean’s vehicle, the officers
lacked a reasonable belief Bean was armed and dangerous, and they should not
have continued searching him. We reverse the trial court’s admission of the
evidence obtained as a result of Bean jumping up and down and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[23] Reversed and remanded.
Robb, J., concurs.
Baker, J., dissents with opinion.
11
Bean also argues that the detectives unconstitutionally extended the duration of the traffic stop. See Wilson
v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding officer did not have reasonable suspicion to
detain driver after traffic stop was concluded). However, we need not address the constitutionality of the
duration of the stop because we hold the shoe search and all subsequent searches were unlawful.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 15 of 21
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Michael Bean II, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-225
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
Baker, Judge, dissenting.
[24] I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority to the extent that the series of
non-consensual searches of Bean—the second pat-down search, the request to
remove his shoes, and the order to shake out the front of his pants—cannot be
justified as a frisk for weapons. But, as the majority acknowledges, a pat-down
search for weapons to protect officer safety is not the only exception to the
Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Rather than review the non-
consensual searches as frisks for weapons under a Terry analysis, I would
instead find that the series of non-consensual searches that the majority finds
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 16 of 21
unconstitutional to fall squarely under the search incident to arrest exception to
the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
[25] Because the non-consensual searches were conducted following the discovery of
marijuana shake, an illegal substance, 12 in Bean’s car, the deputies had probable
cause to conduct the warrantless searches as a search incident to arrest. Under
the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches of a person are reasonable
intrusions if the search is incident to a lawful custodial arrest. E.g., Easley v.
State, 166 Ind. App. 316, 319, 335 N.E.2d 838, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975).
Importantly, “even when a police officer does not tell a defendant that he or she
is under arrest prior to a search, that fact does not invalidate a search incident to
an arrest as long as there is probable cause to make an arrest.” Moffitt v. State,
817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). That is, the relevant question is
“whether [an officer] had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he
searched him,” regardless of whether the search preceded or followed the arrest
itself. Easley, 166 Ind. App. at 319, 335 N.E.2d at 840. “Probable cause
adequate 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, 817 N.E.2d at 246.
12
See I.C. § 35-48-4-11.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 17 of 21
[26] Here, the facts known to Deputy Wood at the time he conducted the
warrantless, non-consensual search of Bean were sufficient to establish probable
cause to justify the intrusion. During the consensual search of Bean’s vehicle,
Deputy Wood found seeds and stems that he identified, based on his training
and experience, to be marijuana shake. Deputy Lewis also informed Deputy
Wood that he had observed Bean during that search to be visibly nervous—
rapidly shifting his feet, crossing himself, and grabbing at his groin—exhibiting
behaviors that Deputy Lewis testified as being “generally associated with
concealment of some type of contraband, whether it be a weapon or . . .
narcotics.” Tr. Vol. II p. 54.
[27] The discovery of the marijuana seeds, the possession of which is a crime, on its
own is enough to establish probable cause to search Bean. Under Indiana Code
section 35-48-1-19, “marijuana” is defined to include “any part of the plant
genus Cannabis whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; . . . [and] any
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant,
its seeds or resin.” (Emphases added); see also Edwards v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1072,
1080 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (finding that search warrant was properly based upon
probable cause where marijuana seeds were found in defendant’s trash and “the
possession of marijuana seeds itself is a crime”).
[28] The majority dismisses the relevance of the marijuana primarily because the
identity of the discovered plant material was neither sniffed and verified by the
police dog in Deputy Wood’s car nor tested later on. But the majority’s
conclusion on the matter—that the deputy’s identification of a substance based
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 18 of 21
on his training and experience cannot, without more, establish probable
cause—runs directly counter to prior case law. Our Supreme Court has held,
and this Court has routinely reiterated, that “[t]he opinion of someone
sufficiently experienced with [a] drug may establish its identity, as may other
circumstantial evidence.” Vasquez v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1214, 1216 (Ind. 2001);
see also, e.g., Helton v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1020, 1024 (Ind. 2009); Yoakum v. State,
95 N.E.3d 169, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018); Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855, 865
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Although chemical analysis is one way, and perhaps the
best way, to establish the identity of a compound, persons experienced in the
area may be able to identify cigarette smoke, marijuana, and [other drugs].”
Vasquez, 741 N.E.2d at 1216-17.
[29] In Edwards v. State, this Court found that marijuana seeds and stems discovered
in a trash search were properly relied upon to provide probable cause, even
though the substance was never tested: “That they did not have the material
tested to be sure that it was marijuana is not fatal because they were able to
identify the material as marijuana based upon their training and experience.” 832
N.E.2d at 1079-80 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Danner v. State, this Court
held that an officer’s observation of marijuana through a car window alone was
enough to provide the officer with probable cause. 931 N.E.2d 421, 431 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010); see also State v. Hawkins, 766 N.E.2d 749, 751-52 (Ind. Ct. App.
2002) (holding that the smell of burnt marijuana alone, if detected by a trained
and experienced police officer, supports probable cause).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 19 of 21
[30] At trial, Deputy Wood testified that he identified the shake found in Bean’s
vehicle to be marijuana “given my training and experience.” Tr. Vol. II p. 43.
In light of our own Court’s previous decisions involving officer identification of
marijuana, this testimony is sufficient to uphold the series of non-consensual
searches as supported by probable cause. The fact that Deputy Lewis separately
testified, as the majority points out, that the discovery of the marijuana shake
“[was] basically irrelevant” and that the officers “didn’t do anything with it,” id.
at 67, does not undermine the existence of probable cause. Even if the
marijuana was never seized nor was the basis of any charge against Bean, the
facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time of the non-consensual
searches—namely, that an illegal substance was discovered in Bean’s vehicle—
nonetheless give rise to the reasonable belief that a criminal act had been
committed. 13
[31] Furthermore, Bean’s nervous behavior and adjusting of his groin area, when
known in conjunction with the marijuana discovery, merely added to the facts
upon which Deputy Wood reasonably concluded Bean had committed a
criminal act, thus establishing the necessary probable cause. See, 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. But the case is readily
distinguishable from Bean’s in that it does not deal with marijuana possession or identification, nor the
knowledge of any other specific illegal conduct (i.e., observation of an illegal substance), or specific
suspicious behavior (i.e., visible nervousness, rapid shifting of the feet, and so on) prior to conducting the
search.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 20 of 21
Ind. App. at 319-20, 335 N.E.2d at 840-41 (listing the facts known to the
arresting officer, and that established probable cause, as including observation
of green plant material that the officer identified as marijuana in the back seat of
the vehicle and “certain suspicious movements” made by defendant trying to
hide something around his belt).
[32] Had no marijuana been discovered prior to the series of non-consensual
searches of Bean, I would readily agree that the non-consensual searches were
unconstitutional and that reversal is warranted. But given all the facts and
circumstances known to the officers at the time they conducted those searches,
and in light of how similar facts and circumstances have been treated in
numerous prior decisions, I would affirm the trial court’s decision.
[33] Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-225 | February 13, 2020 Page 21 of 21