Indiana Supreme Court Approves Drug Search of Cars in Public Lots

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper
indiana supreme court approves drug search of cars in public lots

Cars in public parking lots can be searched at any time by police with drug sniffing dogs, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week. The precedent was handed down in the case of James S. Hobbs IV who was arrested on March 13, 2009. State troopers had an arrest warrant for Hobbs and were waiting for him across the street from the Pizza Hut where the suspect worked. At 9:15pm, Hobbs left the restaurant and placed an object in his car, but the police were not able to grab Hobbs before he returned to the restaurant.

While Hobbs was placed under arrest inside the Pizza Hut, a drug dog was used to search his car. Marijuana was found. A trial court ruled the search illegal because it was conducted without a warrant. The court of appeals disagreed, as did a divided supreme court.

Hobbs had argued that because he was in the restaurant under arrest, the usual “officer safety” excuse to search a vehicle did not apply, nor could the necessity of preserving evidence be used to excuse the lack of a search warrant because the arrest warrant for Hobbs had nothing to do with drug charges.

“Most cases addressing the automobile exception arise in the context of an arrest or an investigatory stop of a motorist that gives rise to probable cause, but the exception is grounded in the mobility of the vehicle and its location in a public area, not on whether the issue arises in the context of an arrest or a traffic stop,” Justice Theodore R. Boehm wrote for the majority. “Under the exception, an operational vehicle is inherently mobile, whether or not a driver is behind the wheel or has ready access…. It is well settled that a dog sniff is not a search protected by the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, no degree of suspicion is required to summon the canine unit to the scene to conduct an exterior sniff of the car or to conduct the sniff itself.”

Justices Frank Sullivan, Jr. and Robert D. Rucker did not think merely establishing that a car was “readily mobile” and “operational” justified the search, based on his reading of precedent.

“In every one of the cases cited by the court and in all of the automobile exception cases that I have reviewed, law enforcement officers’ initial contact with a suspect occurs either during a lawful traffic stop or at least in close proximity to the vehicle,” Sullivan wrote in the dissent. “Said slightly differently, in all of the cases where the automobile exception to the warrant requirement has been held available, the vehicle in question has been not only readily mobile and operational but also in close proximity to the suspect at the time of initial contact with the police.”

Because in this case Hobbs was nowhere near his vehicle when the search took place, police should have taken the time to obtain a warrant, Sullivan and Rucker argued.

A copy of the decision is available in a 200k PDF file at the source link below.

Indiana v. Hobbs (Supreme Court of Indiana, 9/30/2010)


Join the conversation
6 of 39 comments
  • Econobiker Econobiker on Oct 08, 2010

    Maybe they need to drug sniff the vehicles valet parked for a $10,000 a plate political party support dinner attended by the politically connected movers and shakers... and you'll see how fast this law is yanked.

    • See 1 previous
    • Porschespeed Porschespeed on Oct 09, 2010

      When I was in snobby private HS on a scholarship, the best blow was stolen from the stashes of the most "respectable" citizens in our town. They never noticed the OZ we took, as there was a key in the bedroom drawer...

  • Porschespeed Porschespeed on Oct 11, 2010

    Lemme helpya, Drug dogs are trained to "alert" to a cue given by their handler - regardless of whether the dog has a drug/explosive reason to "alert" or not. Grow the Eff up. Dog not smelling anything? Irrelevant, as the handler has a wink/nod/cue that will make the dog "alert" regardless. Which under the Bush/Hitler/Obama 'Patriot Act' gives one probable cause to do anything to a citizen w/o any of our Constitution protections being applied.

    • See 1 previous
    • Porschespeed Porschespeed on Oct 14, 2010

      bugo, Glad to hear that you escaped relatively unscathed. Sad to observe that escaping unscathed from an illegal search is something to be congratulated... That they didn't "choose" to plant drugs/guns on you is a win - well handled on your part, esp were you not one of us white folk (natch, you'd be posting from jail if you weren't). My GF's Dobie was trained by the people who train PD dogs for the Metro area I reside in. Her step bro is a State Patrol officer. I wish I could tell all the stories I've heard...

  • ToolGuy CXXVIII comments?!?
  • ToolGuy I did truck things with my truck this past week, twenty-odd miles from home (farther than usual). Recall that the interior bed space of my (modified) truck is 98" x 74". On the ride home yesterday the bed carried a 20 foot extension ladder (10 feet long, flagged 14 inches past the rear bumper), two other ladders, a smallish air compressor, a largish shop vac, three large bins, some materials, some scrap, and a slew of tool cases/bags. It was pretty full, is what I'm saying.The range of the Cybertruck would have been just fine. Nothing I carried had any substantial weight to it, in truck terms. The frunk would have been extremely useful (lock the tool cases there, out of the way of the Bed Stuff, away from prying eyes and grasping fingers -- you say I can charge my cordless tools there? bonus). Stainless steel plus no paint is a plus.Apparently the Cybertruck bed will be 78" long (but over 96" with the tailgate folded down) and 60-65" wide. And then Tesla promises "100 cubic feet of exterior, lockable storage — including the under-bed, frunk and sail pillars." Underbed storage requires the bed to be clear of other stuff, but bottom line everything would have fit, especially when we consider the second row of seats (tools and some materials out of the weather).Some days I was hauling mostly air on one leg of the trip. There were several store runs involved, some for 8-foot stock. One day I bummed a ride in a Roush Mustang. Three separate times other drivers tried to run into my truck (stainless steel panels, yes please). The fuel savings would be large enough for me to notice and to care.TL;DR: This truck would work for me, as a truck. Sample size = 1.
  • Art Vandelay Dodge should bring this back. They could sell it as the classic classic classic model
  • Surferjoe Still have a 2013 RDX, naturally aspirated V6, just can't get behind a 4 banger turbo.Also gloriously absent, ESS, lane departure warnings, etc.
  • ToolGuy Is it a genuine Top Hand? Oh, I forgot, I don't care. 🙂