MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 30 2015, 8:32 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jane H. Conley Gregory F. Zoeller
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Eric P. Babbs
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Nakisha Morris, November 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A04-1504-CR-170
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William J. Nelson,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge.
Trial Court Cause No.
49F18-1307-FD-50148
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 1 of 9
[1] Appellant-Defendant Nakisha Morris was involved in the theft of several items
from an Indianapolis-area CVS store. Following the theft, Morris and her
cohorts fled the scene in a vehicle, a description of which was broadcast over
police radio. Marian University Police Officer Stephen Dickey spotted and
pursued the vehicle. The pursuit began approximately one block from campus.
Officer Dickey followed the vehicle around the perimeter of the campus before
finally heading off the vehicle and forcing it to stop. During the pursuit,
passengers in the vehicle threw many of the stolen items out of the windows.
[2] Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) charged Morris with Class
D felony theft. At trial, Morris argued that Officer Dickey was outside his
jurisdiction when beginning pursuit of the vehicle and so the items found as a
result of the stop should be suppressed. The trial court denied Morris’s motion
to suppress and found Morris guilty. On appeal, Morris argues that the trial
court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On July 31, 2013, Jay Estelle was working as the store manager of a CVS store
located at 30th street and Lafayette Road in Indianapolis. (Tr. 7) As Estelle was
watching the store’s security monitors, he noticed three women and one man
acting suspiciously. (tr. 10-15) The women were each carrying a bag and
placing store merchandise into the bags. (Tr. 13-17) One of the women yelled
out to the others “we got to go,” at which point the four individuals “bolted”
out of the store without paying for the merchandise. Tr. p. 18. The four
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 2 of 9
individuals entered a white Mazda in the store’s parking lot and left. (tr. 19-20,
tr. 55) At some point before the group left the store, a CVS employee called the
police and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Tiffany Wren was
dispatched to the CVS to investigate. (Tr. 19)
[4] Estelle followed the group in his vehicle and located them at a nearby
apartment complex at which point he called the police to let them know of the
group’s location. (Tr. 19-20) The three women then left the apartment complex
in the same vehicle. The theft was reported over police radio along with the
vehicle’s description and location. (Tr. 55)
[5] Shortly thereafter, Marian University Police Officer Stephen Dickey, who had
heard the radio broadcast, observed a white Mazda travelling eastbound on 30th
Street at “at least twice the average normal traffic speed.” Tr. p. 55. Officer
Dickey activated his emergency lights and siren and followed the vehicle. (Tr.
57) The Mazda turned north onto Cold Spring Road and passed another
vehicle by crossing over a double yellow line into the oncoming traffic lane.
(Tr. 72-73) While pursuing the Mazda, Officer Dickey and Estelle both
reported that the vehicle’s occupants were throwing various items out of the
windows. (Tr. 21, 74) Ultimately, Officer Dickey was able to head-off the
vehicle as it was passing through the Cold Spring School parking lot. (Tr. 75)
[6] Officer Tiffany Wren and two other Marian Unviersity Police Officers arrived
at the scene to assist Officer Dickey. (Tr. 76, 98) After being removed from the
vehicle, the suspects were identified as Shaneque Dotson, Keania Harris, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 3 of 9
Morris. (Tr. 98, 110) Officers found two items of Nivea lip balm in Morris’s
pocket. (Tr. 104) Officers also recovered several items from the side of the road
believed to have been thrown from the vehicle, including personal hygiene
items, several pairs of socks, and a canvas handbag. (tr. 80, 99-101, Ex. 11-14)
The lip balm, socks, and hygiene items were identified by Estelle as belonging
to the CVS. (Tr. 21-22)
[7] The State charged Morris with one count of Class D felony theft. (App. 17) On
February 18, 2015, the trial court conducted a bench trial. (Tr. 2) The trial
court admitted into evidence an aerial photo of the Marian University campus,
adjacent areas, and the approximate location of the traffic stop. (Ex. 3) The
trial court also admitted maps from Marian’s website which illustrate the
territorial extent of campus and the streets running through and adjacent to the
campus. (Ex. A, B) The maps show that 30th Street is essentially the southern
boundary of the campus and Cold Spring Road the eastern boundary of the
majority of the campus. (id) The University also owns several houses along
Winfield Avenue, Sharon Avenue, and 33rd Street––streets which make up the
block immediately adjacent to the southwestern corner of campus––which are
used as student and faculty housing. (Tr. 51)
[8] The trial court also admitted a resolution of the Marian University Board of
Trustees dated July 27, 2013, in which the Trustees agreed to extend the
jurisdiction of University police officers’ jurisdiction in accordance with Indiana
Code section 21-17-5-5 to include certain law enforcement activities within
Marion County. (Ex. 1) The Trustees notified the Marion County Sheriff’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 4 of 9
Office, Indiana State Police, and IMPD of the Trustees’ resolution on July 22,
2014. (Ex. 2)
[9] Throughout trial, Morris objected to the admission of evidence obtained after
and as a result of Officer Dickey’s pursuit and stop of the Mazda, arguing that
Officer Dickey was outside his jurisdiction when he began pursuit of the
vehicle. (Tr. 67-72) The trial court overruled Morris’s objection because the
pursuit and stop occurred on streets passing through and adjacent to the Marian
campus. (tr. 68, 71-72) The trial court found Morris guilty and, on April 14,
2015, sentenced Morris to 730 days with credit for two days served and the
remaining 726 days suspended to probation. (App. 8, 9, 13)
Discussion and Decision
[10] Morris argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence found during or as
a result of Officer Dickey’s pursuit of Morris because Officer Dickey was
outside his jurisdiction when initiating the stop.
[11] The admission or exclusion of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the
trial court and we will reverse such a decision only if the trial court abused that
discretion. Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the
logic, facts, and circumstances presented. Id. We do not reweigh evidence or
judge the credibility of witnesses, and we consider conflicting evidence most
favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. We may affirm the trial court’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 5 of 9
judgment if it is sustainable on any legal basis supported by the record. Ratliff v.
State, 770 N.E.2d 807, 809 (Ind. 2002).
[12] Indiana Code section 21-17-5-2 authorizes postsecondary educational
institutions to “[a]ppoint police officers for the educational institution for which
it is responsible.” Indiana Code section 21-17-5-5 governs the extent of
university police officers’ jurisdictions:
(b) A police officer appointed under this chapter may exercise the
powers granted under this chapter upon any real property owned
or occupied by the educational institution employing the police
officer, including the streets passing through and adjacent to the
educational institution. An institution may extend a police
officer’s territorial jurisdiction in accordance with subsection (c).
(c) An institution may extend a police officer’s territorial
jurisdiction to the entire state, or to any part of the state, if:
(1) the board of trustees adopts a resolution specifically
describing the territorial jurisdiction of a police officer
appointed under this chapter; and
(2) the board of trustees notifies the:
(A) superintendent of the state police department;
and
(B) sheriff of the county in which the institution is
primarily located (or the chief of police of the
consolidated city, if the institution is primarily
located in a consolidated city);
of the boundaries of the extended territorial jurisdiction.
[13] The undisputed evidence is that at the time Officer Dickey initially spotted the
Mazda travelling eastbound on 30th Street, Officer Dickey was travelling
southbound on Sharon Avenue as part of his regular patrol of the student
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 6 of 9
houses. (Tr. 54) Sharon Avenue is approximately one block west of the western
boundary of the Marian campus. (ex. A) Officer Dickey turned on his
emergency lights while still on Sharon Street. (Tr. 59) Once Officer Dickey
turned onto 30th Street, the Mazda was still travelling on 30th and was directly in
front of Marian’s football stadium. (Tr. 59) Officer Dickey then pursued the
vehicle east on 30th and then north on Cold Spring Road. This pursuit took the
vehicles along the entire southern boundary of the University (30th Street) and
along the majority of the eastern boundary (Cold Spring Road). We think that
this evidence clearly establishes that Officer Dickey began and continued
pursuit of the vehicle on streets which are adjacent to Marian University and/or
property owned by Marian University.
[14] Even assuming Officer Dickey was not on streets which were adjacent to
Marian University for purposes of Section 21-17-5-5-(b), the Marian Trustees
agreed to extend the jurisdiction of University police officers in accordance with
Indiana Code section 21-17-5-5(c) to include law enforcement activities within
Marion County. Additionally, Indiana Code section 21-17-5-4(a)(4) places
upon university officers “[t]he duty to assist and cooperate with other law
enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers.”
[15] Morris argues that the Marian Trustees failed to comply with Section 21-17-5-
5(c)(2), requiring notice of expansion of jurisdiction to be sent to state and local
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 7 of 9
police departments, prior to the events at issue here. 1 However, Morris cites no
authority to support her position or otherwise explain how the Trustee’s failure
to comply with an administrative notice requirement designed to facilitate
communication among police departments implicates her constitutional rights
against unlawful search and seizure as would be required for the evidence to be
suppressed.
[16] Evidence should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law
enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged
with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the
Fourth Amendment….[S]uppression is appropriate only where
police acts are sufficiently culpable and suppression can
meaningfully deter those acts. The good-faith inquiry is confined
to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably
well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal
in light of all of the circumstances.
Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719, 724 (Ind. 2010) (citations and quotations
omitted) (Indiana Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to admit a
firearm into evidence found by police while executing in good faith an Alabama
arrest warrant which was later determined to be defective).
[17] Here, Morris’s argument fails for two reasons: (1) Morris’s Fourth amendment
rights are not violated by failure by the Marian Trustees to comply with inter-
1
Marian did not send the notice under subsection (c)(2) until July 22, 2014, approximately one year after the
events at issue in this case. We also note that, for purposes of her argument, Morris inaccurately assumes
that Officer Dickey initiated the stop on streets which are not adjacent to Marian University and/or property
owned by Marian University.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 8 of 9
department notice requirement and (2) Officer Dickey was operating under the
reasonable assumption that he was within his jurisdiction and had no reason to
know that the Trustees had not given notice to local and state police
departments. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Morris’s
motion to suppress.
[18] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1504-CR-170 | November 30, 2015 Page 9 of 9