Call Now

Call Now

Call Now

Blog

Breaking News, What You Need To Know: Indiana Court of Appeals Orders State To Reimburse Man $77k For Illegal Seizure

Breaking News, What You Need To Know: Indiana Court of Appeals Orders State To Reimburse Man $77k For Illegal Seizure

The United States Constitution, as well as the Indiana Constitution, protect against “illegal searches and seizures.” This means that a law enforcement officer cannot simply search your person or home, or seize your belongings, unless certain requirements are met. In Indiana, seizures of personal property must be done in accordance with Ind. Code 34-24-1. In a nutshell, property cannot be seized unless it is an incident to an arrest, search, or administrative inspection. Property cannot be seized simply because it looks like a crime may have been committed or looks suspicious. Instead, as the Indiana Court of Appeals reiterated in Lewis v. State1, there must be “a nexus between [seized property] and some sort of criminal activity.” This key case to protect your rights against an illegal search of your property is the focus of this blog post.

In Lewis, the Defendant was pulled over for a routine traffic stop after a police officer observed a vehicle swerving, and its license plate was barely visible. After being pulled over, the Defendant told the officer that he had just purchased the vehicle and was currently in the process of switching the title of the vehicle. Furthermore, the Defendant informed the officer of every step he had taken to change the title with the BMV. The officer then asked Defendant if Defendant wanted to sit in the officer’s car with the officer while he ran the plates on the Defendant’s vehicle, as well as his driver’s license. Both the vehicle’s plate and the Defendant’s license checked out, and the officer informed the Defendant he would let him go with a warning. After finishing up the documentation for the warning, the officer asked Defendant if he had ever been in trouble for drugs. The Defendant responded that there “might have been something in Detroit.” The officer then proceeded to ask the Defendant if there were any narcotics in the car, and the Defendant paused for a slight moment before saying “no.” The officer asked the Defendant if he could conduct a K-9 search of the vehicle in which case the Defendant again said “no.” The officer proceeded to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, ultimately finding two scales and 77,000 in cash, but no drugs. The Defendant denied knowing about the money. The $77,000 was seized and transferred to the government. Defendant appealed.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that the seizure was illegal because the State failed to show that there was a connection between the money and any crime. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Defendant. In reversing the decision in favor of the Defendant, the Court noted that there was “no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred.” The Court goes on to point out that the State even admitted that it is unclear what the crime is, but nonetheless seized the money anyway because “there must have been a crime committed.” The Court believed that argument “goes several steps too far” than what was intended by the statute to protect this constitutional right. In concluding, the Court noted that the State “wholly failed” to prove that the cash was in any way related to a crime, and therefore was unlawful pursuant to the statute and unconstitutional. Due to the State’s premature seizure of money, and the complete lack of evidence, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ordered the State reimburse Defendant the amount seized.

This case highlights the importance of staying up to date in the ever-changing legal landscape. Knowing the status of developments in the law is the key to avoiding criminal liability, including the overlap with civil law, such as here where the defendant has had money taken on a criminal theory, as well as being an engaged citizen in our participatory system of government. This blog post on a key new case was written by attorneys at Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. who handle criminal defense cases and appeals of criminal convictions throughout the state. This blog is written for educational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice or a solicitation for services. It is an advertisement.


  1. Lewis v. Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, 18A-MI-1869 (Ind Ct. App. 2019).

 

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on email
Email

We Listen & Care

Proven & experienced attorneys successfully advocating & resolving complex cases for over 25 years

Quick Contact

Need to talk now? Fill out the quick form below and we will contact you directly.
Blog Categories

Get In Touch

We're available to answer your questions 24/7.

Contact Us

Please fill out the form below and we will be in touch with you shortly.

Ciyou & Dixon, P.C., is a law firm located in Indianapolis, Indiana. We serve clients in six core practice areas: family lawappellate practicefirearms lawgeneral practicepersonal injury and criminal law.

Call Now

Copyright © 2021 Ciyou & Dixon, P.C., Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. This Site does not provide legal advice; please review the disclaimer for other limitations. Privacy Policy

Based in Indianapolis and founded in 1995, Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. is a niche law firm focused on successfully dealing with the complexities of divorce, high-conflict child custody and family law. Known for their ability to solve extremely complex situations with high quality work and responsiveness, Ciyou & Dixon will guide you every step of the way. The family law attorneys at Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. will help you precisely identify your objectives and the means to reach your desired result. In addition, this practice focus is augmented by the firm's other three core areas, namely appellate advocacy, civil practice, and firearms law. Life is uncertain. Be certain of your counselSM.

Indianapolis Divorce Attorneys, Ciyou & Dixon, P.C. of Indianapolis, Indiana, offers legal services for Indianapolis, Zionsville, Noblesville, Carmel, Avon, Anderson, Danville, Greenwood, Brownsburg, Geist, Fortville, McCordsville, Muncie, Greenfield, Westfield, Fort Wayne, Fishers, Bloomington, Lafayette, Marion County, Hamilton County, Hendricks County, Allen County, Delaware County, Morgan County, Hendricks County, Boone County, Vigo County, Johnson County, Hancock County, and Tippecanoe County, Indiana.