ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
P. STEPHEN MILLER KAREN M. FREEMAN-WILSON
Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JOSEPH A. SAMRETA
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
JAMES LESHORE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, ) Supreme Court Cause Number
) 02S03-0101-CR-69
v. )
) Court of Appeals Cause Number
STATE OF INDIANA, ) 02A03-0007-CR-234
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge
Cause No. 02D04-9903-CF-133
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
September 13, 2001
RUCKER, Justice
We grant the State’s petition to transfer and hold that where a
police officer places a person in handcuffs pursuant to a Writ of Body
Attachment, the person is “lawfully detained” within the meaning of the
escape statute even though the Writ later proves to be defective.
Facts
On March 17, 1999, police officer Michael Bennington went to the Fort
Wayne home of James Leshore to execute a Writ of Body Attachment. Leshore
had not paid child support and was being cited for contempt of court. The
Writ directed Officer Bennington to “attach and keep [Leshore] until you
bring [him] before the Judge to answer a charge of contempt in not obeying
the order of [the Allen Superior Court].” R. at 69. Officer Bennington
entered Leshore’s home, placed Leshore in handcuffs, and detained him.
Slipping free of the cuffs, Leshore fled the scene. He was apprehended
minutes later.
Leshore was charged with escape and following a bench trial was
convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced him to four years
imprisonment, ordered the sentence suspended, and placed Leshore on
probation for two years. In a two to one decision, the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court finding the evidence was insufficient to support
the conviction. Leshore v. State, 739 N.E.2d 1075, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App.
2000). Observing that escape requires a person to flee from lawful
detention, the Court of Appeals majority determined that Leshore was never
lawfully detained because the Writ of Body Attachment was invalid on its
face. Id. More specifically, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the
statute concerning the issuance of a Writ of Body Attachment requires the
trial court to “fix an amount of [] escrow, if the order that the person
has allegedly violated concerns a child support obligation[;]” or “fix an
amount of [] bail, if the order the person has allegedly violated does not
concern a child support obligation[.]” Id. at 1077; Ind. Code § 34-47-4-
2(b)(2). In this case, the form order for the Writ shows the trial court
neither fixed an amount for escrow nor bail but specifically called for “No
Bond.” R. at 68. The Court of Appeals reversed Leshore’s escape
conviction “because there was never a lawful detention for Leshore to
intentionally flee from.” Leshore, 739 N.E.2d at 1079. We grant transfer
and affirm the trial court.
Discussion
We first observe because the Writ did not include an amount for bail
or escrow it was defective. However, we disagree with the Court of Appeals
that the defect rendered the Writ invalid on its face. Facial invalidity
is not determined by comparing the statute concerning Writs of Body
Attachment with the Writ ultimately issued. Rather, invalidity is
dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case. The question is
whether an examination of the four corners of the document reveals that it
is invalid. See, e.g., Stine v. Shuttle, 134 Ind. App. 67, 186 N.E.2d 168,
172 (1962) (observing the general rule that an officer executing process or
a warrant “is not required to look beyond the process or warrant or
determine the validity or regularity of the proceedings on which it is
founded, or to exercise his judgment touching its validity in a point of
law . . . .”); see also United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984)
(commenting that by failing to particularize the place to be searched and
the things to be seized, a search warrant may be so facially defective that
“executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.”). In this
case, one who looked at the Writ would not necessarily suspect that it was
invalid. The Writ contained the name of the defendant/respondent: James
Leshore; set forth his address; identified the document as a Writ of Body
Attachment for a person who was in contempt of court; ordered law
enforcement to attach and keep Leshore; and bore the signature of the
issuing judge. R. at 68. In essence, the Writ was regular on its face,
appeared to be valid, and gave no indication that anything more needed to
be done other than to execute it. Only if Officer Bennington knew or had
reason to know that the applicable statute required the posting of an
amount for escrow or bail would he have been alerted that something was
amiss. However, there is no such evidence of record.
In any event, although not facially invalid, the Writ was defective as
a matter of law. However, that fact alone is not dispositive of whether
Leshore was lawfully detained. Citing Indiana Code sections 35-41-1-
18(a)(1) and (10) (Supp. 2000), which defines lawful detention as “arrest
[] or [] any other detention for law enforcement purposes,” Judge Barnes
writing in dissent concluded that Officer Bennington was engaged in a law
enforcement activity, and thus Leshore was lawfully detained. Leshore, 739
N.E.2d at 1079. We agree with Judge Barnes. Officer Bennington testified
that he was assigned to the Warrants Division of the Allen County Sheriff’s
Department and had the duty to “go out and locate individuals that are
hiding or disobeying the Court, not honoring warrants or personal
appearances that they should make before the Court and bring them into
custody.” R. at 45. Leshore has neither demonstrated nor argued why the
officer’s account of his activity does not qualify as law enforcement
activity. Rather, Leshore insists “[t]o allow law enforcement to detain
and place into custody any individual for a civil matter under
circumstances in
which the detainee may be held without any provision for his or her
release, would seem to be a flagrant violation of every citizens’
constitutional rights.” Br. in Opp’n to Transfer at 1.
Leshore’s argument is misplaced. A person seized through the issuance
of a defective Writ of Body Attachment may have a civil rights claim or a
cause of action in tort against those responsible for its issuance, see,
e.g., Delk v. Bd. Of Comm’rs of Delaware County, 503 N.E.2d 436 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1987) (complaint for false imprisonment and a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 where person seized pursuant to a Writ of Body Attachment was not the
person named in the document); however, the fact the Writ is defective does
not control whether an officer is engaged in law enforcement activity at
the time the Writ is served. Indeed, a law enforcement officer has no
choice but to carry out an order of a judge when the judge is acting in a
judicial capacity in a matter over which the judge has jurisdiction. See
Grant County Comm’rs v. Cotton, 677 N.E.2d 1103, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)
(finding sheriff entitled to judicial immunity for detaining a person for
an extended period of time as a result of a judge’s order), trans. denied;
see also I.C. § 34-47-4-2(c)-(d) (dictating that a sheriff who receives a
body attachment order “shall immediately: (1) serve the writ; and (2) take
the person into custody” and “immediately . . . take the person before the
court that issued the writ.”). In this case, when placing the handcuffs on
Leshore, Officer Bennington was acting in the course of his employment as a
law enforcement officer pursuant to an order by a trial court that was
valid on its face. The officer was obligated to discharge his duty.
Further, absent exceptions not applicable here, just as a citizen may not
resist arrest by a police officer even if the arrest later proves to be
unlawful, Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985);
City of Indianapolis v. Ervin, 405 N.E.2d 55, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980);
Williams v. State, 160 Ind. App. 294, 311 N.E.2d 618, 621 (1974), a citizen
may not escape from a police officer’s detention even if the grounds upon
which the detention is based are later determined to be defective.
Conclusion
The evidence was sufficient to sustain Leshore’s conviction. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.