MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 10 2016, 8:32 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew D. Anglemeyer Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Ellen H. Meilaender
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Johnny Edmonds, June 10, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1510-CR-1669
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Shatrese M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Flowers, Judge
The Honorable David M. Seiter,
Commissioner
Trial Court Cause No.
49G20-1412-F3-56082
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Johnny Edmonds appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine, as a Level 5
felony, and possession of a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony, following a jury
trial. He presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate
as whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence
the contraband officers found during a search incident to his arrest.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On December 20, 2014, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department Officer John Walters and other officers responded to a
report of an armed robbery in an alley near the 1000 block of Oxford Street.
The officers found the victim, John Hancock, at a phone booth at a Citgo gas
station approximately one mile from the location of the robbery. Hancock told
the officers that the assailant was armed with a “silver and chrome pistol” and
stole a personalized wallet,1 containing $360, as well as a cell phone. Tr. at 39.
Hancock described the assailant as “a black male, early thirties, about six f[ee]t
tall, medium build” with a “light complexion, gold tooth, [and] wearing a red
and black Pelle Pelle coat.” Id. at 40. The coat had “the words ‘Pelle Pelle’
1
The stolen wallet had the name “John Hancock” embossed on it. Tr. at 40.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6
written on the back,” and the assailant was also wearing a grey baseball hat,
dark colored pants, and “tan and black shoes[.]” Id. at 41.
[4] At approximately 7:30 p.m., Officer Walters and several other officers arrived
at the 1000 block of Oxford Street and saw a black male, wearing a Pelle Pelle
coat and otherwise matching the description of the robber given by Hancock,
standing at a bus stop there. Officer Walters and other officers approached the
man, later identified as Edmonds, from all sides, and the officers ordered him to
take his hands out of his pockets. Edmonds did not immediately comply with
the officers’ orders, and Officer Walters and Officer Robinett “made physical
contact” with Edmonds, pulling his hands out of his pockets, placing his hands
behind his back, and placing him in handcuffs. Id. at 94.
[5] As soon as Edmonds was handcuffed, Officer Walters performed a pat-down
search of Edmonds’ body and clothing for weapons.2 During that search,
Officer Walters felt in a “front left jacket pocket . . . multiple objects . . .
contained in plastic baggies” which, Officer Walters knew from his training and
experience, “were indicative and sized like suspected narcotics[.]” Id. at 96.
Officer Walters reached into that pocket and pulled out “a Subway cookie
pouch . . . [with] an open top” containing “multiple baggies of a white
substance and one baggie that contained some pills[.]” Id. at 97. A subsequent
search of Edmonds’ person revealed another small baggie containing what was
2
After placing Edmonds in handcuffs, Officer Walters read Miranda rights to Edmonds.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6
later found to be heroin, and officers found $401 in cash. Edmonds admitted to
Officer Walters that the substances were heroin, cocaine, and Oxycodone pills,
and he admitted that he was selling those drugs.
[6] The State charged Edmonds with dealing cocaine, as a Level 3 felony; dealing a
narcotic drug, as a Level 4 felony; possession of cocaine, as a Level 5 felony;
and possession of a narcotic drug, as a Level 5 felony. Prior to trial, Edmonds
moved to suppress the evidence officers found during the pat-down search, but
the trial court denied that motion. At trial, a jury acquitted Edmonds of the
Level 3 and Level 4 felony charges, but found him guilty of the Level 5 charges.
The trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentence accordingly. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Edmonds contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted
into evidence at trial, over his objection, the heroin, cocaine, and Oxycodone
pills officers recovered from his person during the pat-down search. In
particular, Edmonds maintains that those items were seized during a search
that “exceeded the scope” of a valid Terry stop in violation of his rights under
the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Appellant’s Br. at 10. However, we agree with the State that the encounter
between the officers and Edmonds was not a Terry stop but a lawful arrest
supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the search that revealed the
contraband was a lawful search incident to arrest.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[8] The trial court has discretionary power on the admission of evidence, and its
decisions are reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion. Wilson v. State, 765
N.E.2d 1265, 1270 (Ind. 2002). Here, Edmonds’ entire argument on appeal
turns on his assumption that his detention was a Terry stop and that the ensuing
search exceeded the scope of a Terry stop. But the undisputed evidence shows
that, upon observing Edmonds at the bus stop, officers immediately surrounded
him, seized him, and placed him in handcuffs. The officers then searched his
person. We have previously held that the use of handcuffs alone can cause a
reasonable person to feel that he is not free to leave, and that handcuffing
restrains his freedom of movement to a degree associated with a formal arrest.
Wright v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1223, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Thus, we agree
with the State and hold that, on these facts, Edmonds was in custody at the
time that Officer Walters searched him.3 Id.
[9] Regardless, when probable cause exists to make an arrest, whether or not a
suspect was formally placed under arrest at the time of a search incident to
arrest will not invalidate the search. Bell v. State, 13 N.E.3d 543, 545 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014), trans. denied. Here, the officers had probable cause to arrest
Edmonds based on Hancock’s allegation that a man fitting Edmonds’
description and location was armed and had robbed him. See, e.g., Sears v. State,
668 N.E.2d 662, 667 n.9 (Ind. 1996) (“The uncorroborated statements of a
3
Edmonds “does not dispute the officers in this situation were justified in conducting a Terry stop and
search.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. Edmonds does not argue that the officers did not have probable cause to
arrest him prior to the search.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 5 of 6
crime victim may furnish probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant and also
provide the probable cause necessary for a warrantless arrest.”). And Edmonds
does not contend that the search was not a lawful search incident to arrest. See
id. at 667. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
admitted into evidence the contraband officers found on Edmonds’ person.
[10] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1510-CR-1669| June 10, 2016 Page 6 of 6