« Environment - Several NW Indiana environmental issues in the news | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit rules in Gary "sexually oriented businesses" case »

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 6 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Jesse L. Payne v. State of Indiana, a 10-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:

Payne argues the trial court improperly denied his Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of his illegal custodial and arrest interrogations. Specifically, Payne contends that (1) he was stopped illegally because Deputy Watts did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion since the collective knowledge of the police department regarding Payne was not conveyed to Deputy Watts before he stopped Payne, and (2) upon handcuffing Payne the seizure rose to the level of an arrest requiring probable cause, which Deputy Watts also did not possess. * * *

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find Deputy Watts properly detained Payne until another officer with more information could arrive at the scene. Although Payne notes in his brief that Deputy Watts testified Payne was not free to leave, the record indicates Deputy Watts never communicated to Payne he was not free to leave. And, “a police officer’s ‘unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question’ of custody.” Loving, 647 N.E.2d at 1125 (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984)). Rather, the test is how a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes would understand the situation. Loving, 647 N.E.2d at 1125. Deputy Watts sought permission from Payne to place him in handcuffs, indicating Payne was not forcibly restrained against his will. As well, Payne was detained in handcuffs for no more than five minutes. Our supreme court has held that “in assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, we consider it appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly.” Mitchell v. State, 745 N.E.2d 775, 782 (Ind. 2001) (quoting Unite States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-67 (1985)). Thus, based on Deputy Watts’ receiving permission from Payne to be handcuffed and the brevity of Payne’s detention in handcuffs, we find Deputy Watts’ detention of Payne did not rise to the level of an arrest, but was rather an investigatory detention in line with Crabtree and Johnson.

CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Payne’s Motion to Suppress. Affirmed.

In St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Evansville, Vanderburgh Co., a 19-page opinion (with a dissent beginning on p. 16), Judge Riley writes: [COMING SOON]

In Government Payment Service v. Ace Bail Bonds, et al, a 10-page opinion, Chief Judge Kirsch writes:

Government Payment Service, Inc. (“GPS”) appeals the trial court’s decision in favor of Ace Bail Bonds, American Bail Bond Company, Bertholet Bail Bond, and Express Bail Bond (collectively, the “Bail Agents”). Specifically, GPS appeals the trial court’s decision to permanently enjoin GPS from facilitating cash bail in Indiana. GPS also appeals the trial court’s denial of its counterclaim for damages.

On appeal, GPS raises the following dispositive issues: I. Whether the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions support the permanent injunction entered against GPS. II. Whether the trial court erred in denying GPS’s counterclaim for damages sustained as a result of being wrongfully enjoined or restrained. We reverse in part and affirm in part. * * *

To prove malicious prosecution, GPS had to prove: (1) the Bail Agents instituted or caused to be instituted an original action against GPS; (2) the Bail Agents acted maliciously in so doing; (3) the Bail Agents had no probable cause to institute the original action; and (4) the original action was terminated in GPS’s favor. City of New Haven v. Reichhart, 748 N.E.2d 374, 378 (Ind. 2001); Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Here, the Lake Superior Court issued the TRO in favor of the Bail Agents. On the merits, the Marion Superior Court issued a permanent injunction also in favor of the Bail Agents. Because the original action was not terminated in GPS’s favor, GPS failed to prove malicious prosecution. The trial court did not err in denying GPS’s counterclaim. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (6) (link to cases):

Lionel Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Reginald Akins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Anthony L. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Randall Ryan Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Juan J. Vasquez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jeramy Heavrin v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 11, 2006 10:40 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions