MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Aug 23 2018, 9:25 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew M. Kubacki Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin Walker, August 23, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-153
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David J. Certo,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable David Hooper,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G12-1610-CM-42103
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Kevin Walker appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of a
synthetic drug. In challenging his conviction, Walker contends that the trial
court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 25, 2016, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Pflum
approached Walker after observing that Walker’s moped was illegally parked
on the sidewalk in violation of a city ordinance. Officer Pflum asked Walker
for his identification. Walker complied with this request but started to act
nervously. Walker approached the moped and acted as if he was trying to keep
Officer Pflum away from it. When Officer Matthew Carroll arrived, he
observed a brown wrapper containing what both he and Officer Pflum
recognized as synthetic marijuana on the sidewalk next to the moped. Officer
Pflum placed Walker under arrest for possession of synthetic marijuana. A
subsequent search of the moped revealed additional synthetic marijuana.
[3] The next day, the State charged Walker with Class A misdemeanor possession
of a synthetic drug. During the January 5, 2018 bench trial, Walker moved to
suppress the evidence stemming from his arrest, arguing that Officers Pflum and
Carroll did not have probable cause to arrest him. The trial court denied
Walker’s motion, concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Walker. The trial court subsequently found Walker guilty and sentenced him to
a one-year suspended term.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Walker contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to suppress. However, because Walker did not seek an interlocutory
appeal after the denial of his motion to suppress, “the issue presented is more
appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting the evidence at trial.” Bentley v. State, 846 N.E.2d 300, 304 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006), trans. denied.
A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of
evidence. Accordingly, we will reverse a trial court’s ruling on
the admissibility of evidence only when the trial court abused its
discretion. An abuse of discretion involves a decision that is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before the court.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
[5] Generally, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a
warrantless search. Berry v. State, 704 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 1998). One
exception to this rule is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Gibson v. State, 733
N.E.2d 945, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Evidence resulting from a search
incident to a lawful arrest is admissible at trial.” Id. However, “[a]n unlawful
arrest cannot be the foundation of a lawful search.” Id. “Evidence obtained as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 3 of 5
a direct result of a search conducted after an illegal arrest is excluded under the
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.” Id. at 954.
[6] Walker argues that his arrest was unlawful because Officers Pflum and Carroll
lacked probable cause to arrest him. “Probable cause exists where the facts and
circumstances within the officers’ knowledge are sufficient in themselves to
warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the person being arrested
has committed or is in the process of committing an offense.” Jackson v. State,
597 N.E.2d 950, 956–57 (Ind. 1992). “The amount of evidence necessary to
satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is determined on
a case-by-case basis.” Moffitt v. State, 817 N.E.2d 239, 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
[7] Walker claims that in order to have probable cause to arrest him, Officers Pflum
and Carroll had to establish that he had actual or constructive possession of the
synthetic marijuana found on the ground near his moped. We agree with the
State’s assertion that while such proof would have been required to sustain a
conviction for possession of that synthetic marijuana, the question on review in
this case is not whether the evidence would be sufficient to sustain a conviction,
but rather whether it was sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that a
suspect has committed a crime. We conclude that it was.
[8] Officer Pflum testified that when he approached Walker, Walker appeared
nervous and acted as if he was trying to keep him away from the moped.
Officer Carroll observed what both he and Officer Pflum recognized as
synthetic marijuana laying on the sidewalk next to the moped. Walker’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 4 of 5
actions combined with the close proximity of the contraband to Walker’s
moped are sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest him. Having
concluded that Walker’s arrest was valid, we further conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence stemming from
Walker’s arrest.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-153 | August 23, 2018 Page 5 of 5