Clinton M. Trease, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Clinton Trease appeals his convictions and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony, and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. On appeal, Trease contends that his arrest and the search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Trease also argues that his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

[2] We conclude that Trease's arrest and the search incident to his arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11; any error in the search of Trease's vehicle was harmless; and his sentence is not inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issues

[3] Trease raises several issues, which we revise as follows:

I. Whether Trease's warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause and the resulting search incident to arrest was proper.

II. Whether the dog sniff and resulting search of Trease's vehicle were proper.

III. Whether Trease's sentence is inappropriate.

Facts

[4] On August 25, 2022, Trease was employed as a maintenance technician at Flex-N-Gate in Covington. On that date, another employee was walking toward the restroom near “one of the hallways by [the] maintenance tech office.” Tr. Vol. III p. 50. The employee found a small black bag on the floor, and the bag contained a white substance, which was later identified as methamphetamine. The employee opened the bag and immediately took it to his supervisor, who took the bag to the general manager, Thomas Crane. Crane contacted human resources and the head of security, Patrick Neff. Neff secured the bag and contacted law enforcement.

[5] Neff then reviewed surveillance video from security cameras in the hallway at issue. The video showed a man wearing a black hat, a long-sleeved black shirt, and blue jeans walking down the hallway and reaching into his pocket. A black bag then fell onto the floor. Neff identified Trease as the individual that dropped the bag. Neff then showed the video to Kasey Sheahan, who was the human resources coordinator at the time. Sheahan also believed that the individual on the video was Trease.

[6] Deputy Brant Needler with the Warren County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to Flex-N-Gate, where he retrieved the black bag for field testing. When Flex-N-Gate employees notified Deputy Needler that they located surveillance video of the individual that dropped the bag, Deputy Needler and Deputy Bryant Pearman returned to Flex-N-Gate. Deputy Pearman met with Trease, watched the video, and also identified Trease as the individual in the video. At that time, Trease was wearing a black hat, a long-sleeved black shirt, and blue jeans.

[7] Deputy Pearman then called for a police canine to perform a sniff of Trease's vehicle. Although Deputy Needler believed he had probable cause to arrest Trease at that point, Deputy Needler decided to “show some leniency ․ if there was a negative indication on the vehicle.” Tr. Vol. II p. 81. Chief Garrett Miller of the Attica Police Department arrived with his police canine, Nico. According to Chief Miller, when Nico detects the odor of narcotics, Nico's behavior will change, and he will give an “audible alert.” Id. at 99. Chief Miller put Nico on a leash and allowed Nico to urinate. Chief Miller then released Nico from the leash and told Nico to “find dope.” Id. at 103. Nico, however, found a grassy area and again relieved himself. Nico returned to Chief Miller, and Chief Miller then repeated his commands to Nico. Trease's vehicle was parked in a line of five vehicles. Nico circled Trease's vehicle, stopped by the driver's door of Trease's vehicle, and repeatedly gave “an audible alert.” Id. at 107.

[8] Because of the positive alert on Trease's vehicle, Deputy Needler decided to arrest Trease at that time. Deputy Needler took Trease to the Warren County Jail and conducted a search incident to arrest. During a search of Trease's person, Deputy Needler located a glass smoking pipe in Trease's pocket, which later tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Deputy Needler obtained a search warrant for Trease's vehicle, and another glass pipe was located in the console of Trease's vehicle.

[9] On August 29, 2022, the State charged Trease with possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony; possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. The State later moved to dismiss the possession of a controlled substance charge, which the trial court granted.

[10] In January 2024, Trease filed a motion to suppress and argued: (1) Trease “was arrested without probable cause because of an unreasonably suggestive K9 sniff in violation of Indian [sic] Code and the Indiana and Federal Constitutions”; and (2) the search warrant “was based upon a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, [ ] included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit in violation of Indian [sic] Code and the Indiana and Federal Constitutions.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 33. Trease argued that the false statements in the search warrant affidavit related to the “unreasonably suggestive” dog sniff and the failure of the affiant to include details of the dog's alert. Id. at 36. Trease sought to suppress “the bag and items found in the bag at Flex-N-Gate” and “all items found in his vehicle and on his person[.]” Id. at 34.

[11] After a hearing, the trial court denied Trease's motion to suppress. The trial court found that the “omitted facts” regarding the dog's behavior “were innocent and inclusion was not warranted, as they were irrelevant.” Id. at 45. Further, the trial court found that, “even before the sniff and search, there existed probable cause to arrest [Trease].” Id. at 46. The officers were entitled to search Trease incident to his arrest, and the evidence discovered on Trease's person was properly seized. Finally, the trial court noted that Trease failed to “articulate a legal basis to suppress the evidence discovered prior to police involvement by the employees of Flex-N-Gate,” and any such argument was waived. Id.

[12] At Trease's jury trial, Trease made a continuing objection based upon his motion to suppress. The jury found Trease guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Trease to concurrent sentences of 730 days on the possession of methamphetamine conviction and sixty days on the possession of paraphernalia conviction. Trease now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Trease's arrest was supported by probable cause.

[13] Trease contends that his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because no objectively reasonable facts connected Trease to the methamphetamine found in the black bag. Further, according to Trease, because Trease's arrest was improper, the glass pipe discovered incident to his arrest should have been suppressed.

[14] Although Trease argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted, because his case proceeded to trial, “his appeal is better framed as a request to review the trial court's ruling on its admissibility.” Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38, 40 (Ind. 2014). The trial court has broad discretion to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Id. We review a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence “for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.” Id. When an appellant's challenge to such a ruling raises a constitutional issue, it is a “question of law, and we consider that question de novo.” Id. at 40-41.

[15] We first note that Trease made a continuing objection at trial based upon his motion to suppress. As the trial court noted in its order denying the motion to suppress, however, Trease's motion to suppress did not articulate an objection to the admission of the methamphetamine found in the bag on the floor at Flex-N-Gate. Further, Trease's actual arguments made during the motion to suppress related to the dog sniff and search warrant, not the search incident to arrest, which resulted in the discovery of a glass pipe containing additional methamphetamine in Trease's pocket. A defendant waives a claim of error where the defendant raises “one ground for objection at trial and argue[s] a different ground on appeal.” Small v. State, 736 N.E.2d 742, 747 (Ind. 2000). Accordingly, Trease's argument on appeal regarding the admission of the methamphetamine and glass pipe found in his pocket is waived. Waiver notwithstanding, we conclude that Trease's arrest was supported by probable cause, and the methamphetamine and glass pipe found in his pocket were admissible under both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11.

A. Fourth Amendment

[16] The Fourth Amendment guarantees that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amend. IV (emphasis added). “The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies not only to searches and seizures of property, but also to physical apprehension of persons, such as arrests.” Thomas v. State, 81 N.E.3d 621, 625 (Ind. 2017). Generally, law enforcement must have a warrant to make an arrest. Id. (citing Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 136 (2009)). “An officer may, however, arrest a suspect without a warrant if he observes the suspect committing a crime, or if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony.” Id.

[17] “Probable cause to arrest arises when, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officer has knowledge of facts and circumstances, which would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the defendant committed the criminal act in question.” Id. (citing Sears v. State, 668 N.E.2d 662, 667 (Ind. 1996)¹ ). “The amount of evidence necessary to satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless arrest is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (citing Peterson v. State, 674 N.E.2d 528, 536 (Ind. 1996)). “Rather than requiring a precise mathematical computation, probable cause is grounded in notions of common sense.” Id. (citing Ogle v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1146, 1148 (Ind. 1998)). Probable cause is established “when the totality of the circumstances establishes ‘a fair probability’—not proof or a prima facie showing—of criminal activity ․” Hodges v. State, 125 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235, 238, 243 n.13 (1983)).

[18] Here, the trial court concluded that, “even before the sniff and search, there existed probable cause to arrest [Trease].” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 46. Further, the trial court found that the officers were entitled to search Trease incident to his arrest, and the evidence discovered on Trease's person was properly seized. We agree with the trial court.

[19] Even before the dog sniff and search of Trease's vehicle, officers were aware that an employee of Flex-N-Gate wearing a black hat, a long-sleeved black shirt, and blue jeans walked down a hallway near the maintenance tech office and reached into his pocket. A black bag containing methamphetamine then fell onto the floor. At the time, Trease, a maintenance technician, was wearing a black hat, a long-sleeved black shirt, and blue jeans and was working on site. Both Neff, the head of security at Flex-N-Gate, and Sheahan, the human resources coordinator at the time, identified the individual on the video as Trease. Deputy Pearman talked with Trease, watched the video, and also identified Trease as the individual in the video. Under these circumstances, the officers had probable cause to believe that Trease dropped the bag of methamphetamine. Accordingly, the officers had probable cause to arrest Trease for a felony even without the dog sniff and search of Trease's vehicle.

[20] Additionally, under the Fourth Amendment, “a search incident to an arrest is permissible where the arrest is lawful.” Thomas, 81 N.E.3d at 626 n.1. Accordingly, Deputy Needler was permitted to search Trease's person as part of his arrest, and Deputy Needler discovered a glass pipe containing methamphetamine in Trease's pocket during the search. Trease's arrest and the search incident to the arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

B. Indiana Constitution

[21] “Although the search and seizure provision found in Article 1, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution tracks the Fourth Amendment verbatim, our jurisprudence has focused on whether the actions of the government were ‘reasonable’ under the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ ” Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719, 726 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356, 359 (Ind. 2005)). We consider the following factors in assessing the reasonableness of a seizure: “ ‘1) the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation had occurred, 2) the degree of intrusion the method of the search or seizure imposes on the citizen's ordinary activities, and 3) the extent of law enforcement needs.’ ” Id. (quoting Litchfield, 824 N.E.2d at 361).

[22] The degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation had occurred here was high. Surveillance video depicted an individual, identified as Trease by several persons, dropping a bag that contained methamphetamine. The officers, thus, had probable cause to believe that Trease committed a felony. See, e.g., Shotts, 925 N.E.2d at 726-27 (in discussing the degree of concern, suspicion, or knowledge that a violation occurred, holding that, based on the information from an Alabama officer and the arrest warrant in the National Crime Information Center database, the Indiana officers reasonably believed that there was probable cause that the defendant committed a crime and that he was armed and at large in Indiana). Further, our Supreme Court has recognized that, in this context, once a lawful arrest has been made, law enforcement may conduct a full search of the arrestee for “weapons or concealed evidence.” Garcia v. State, 47 N.E.3d 1196, 1200 (Ind. 2016). This factor weighs heavily in favor of the State.

[23] As for the degree of intrusion, Trease argues that an arrest is “one of the most severe intrusions possible upon his privacy.” Appellant's Br. p. 28. The State concedes that “no doubt [ ] the degree of intrusion was high ․” Appellee's Br. p. 34. But the degree of intrusion of an arrest is “not a basis to disallow a felony arrest supported by probable cause and executed in a reasonable manner.” Id. at 35. The degree of intrusion here—Trease's arrest and the search incident to the arrest—was high.

[24] The final factor is the extent of law enforcement needs. The State points out that “the extent of law enforcement needs to arrest a person who has committed a felony is also self-evidently high.” Id. at 34. We agree. See Shotts, 925 N.E.2d at 727 (“[T]he arrest was a necessary and reasonable intrusion considering the needs of law enforcement and governmental interests at stake.”). Further, the necessity of a search of Trease, who was being arrested, was high. See Garcia, 47 N.E.3d at 1200. Law enforcement had probable cause that Trease committed a felony; accordingly, the need to arrest was high as well as the need to search incident to arrest.

[25] Weighing the three factors, we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers’ actions in arresting Trease and conducting a search incident to the arrest were reasonable. Trease's arrest and the search incident to the arrest did not violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

II. Any error in the admission of evidence from the search of Trease's vehicle was harmless.

[26] Next, Trease argues that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the dog sniff of his vehicle was unreliable. Trease also argues that law enforcement unreasonably extended his detention to conduct a dog sniff of Trease's vehicle. Finally, Trease contends that the search warrant for his vehicle was invalid because law enforcement made false statements and omitted materially important facts from the affidavit.

[27] We need not address Trease's arguments, however, because any error in the search of his vehicle and the admission of evidence found in his vehicle was harmless. The erroneous admission of evidence that is cumulative of other evidence does not constitute reversible error. Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1240 (Ind. 2012). The only piece of evidence admitted at trial related to the search of Trease's vehicle was a glass pipe found in the console. Law enforcement had probable cause to arrest Trease based on the video capturing Trease dropping the black bag containing methamphetamine and the resulting search incident to his arrest. We have determined that the methamphetamine found on the floor of Flex-N-Gate and the glass pipe containing methamphetamine found in Trease's pocket incident to his arrest were properly admitted as evidence. The glass pipe found in Trease's pocket was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of paraphernalia. The glass pipe found in Trease's vehicle was merely cumulative of other evidence properly admitted at trial. Accordingly, any error in the admission of the glass pipe found in Trease's vehicle was harmless.

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[28] Next, Trease argues that his sentence is inappropriate. The Indiana Constitution authorizes independent appellate review and revision of sentences imposed by a trial court. Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 122 (Ind. 2024) (citing Ind. Const. art. 7, §§ 4, 6). This authority, as implemented through Appellate Rule 7(B), enables this Court to “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Deference to the trial court's sentence should prevail unless “overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense and the defendant's character.” Oberhansley v. State, 208 N.E.3d 1261, 1267 (Ind. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). A defendant, however, need not show that both the nature of the offense and his or her character warrant revision; rather, “a strong showing on one prong” may “outweigh a weak showing” on the other prong. Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 127.

[29] Additionally, in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we are not limited to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found by the trial court. Oberhansley, 208 N.E.3d at 1271. “Our role is primarily to leaven the outliers and identify guiding principles for sentencers, rather than to achieve the perceived correct result in each case.” Lane, 232 N.E.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). “Ultimately, we rely on our collective judgment as to the balance of all the relevant considerations involved, which include the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

[30] When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, the advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Fuller v. State, 9 N.E.3d 653, 657 (Ind. 2014). In the case at hand, the trial court sentenced Trease to concurrent sentences of 730 days for possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony, and sixty days for possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. A person who commits a Level 6 felony “shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of between six (6) months and two and one-half (2 1/212) years, with the advisory sentence being one (1) year.” Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Further, “[a] person who commits a Class C misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed term of not more than sixty (60) days.” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-4. The maximum possible sentence for Trease's offenses, thus, was 972 days. Accordingly, Trease's 730-day sentence was not the maximum sentence.

A. Nature of the Offense

[31] The nature of the offense analysis requires that we “compare [the defendant's] actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense[.]’ ” Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 699 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Anderson v. State, 989 N.E.2d 823, 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). Here, Trease was employed as a maintenance technician, and he dropped a bag containing methamphetamine at his workplace; he possessed a glass pipe containing methamphetamine in his pocket; and the bag contained multiple types of methamphetamine—powder and pills. Trease's offense was not particularly egregious or beyond the actions required to sustain the convictions. But we note that Trease did take methamphetamine and a glass pipe into his workplace. Overall, in considering the nature of the offense, we cannot say that Trease's enhanced but less than maximum sentence is an outlier. We conclude that Trease has failed to demonstrate that the nature of his offense renders his sentence inappropriate.

B. Character of the Offender

[32] Our analysis of the character of the offender involves a broad consideration of a defendant's qualities, including the defendant's age, criminal history, background, past rehabilitative efforts, and remorse. See Harris v. State, 165 N.E.3d 91, 100 (Ind. 2021); McCain v. State, 148 N.E.3d 977, 985 (Ind. 2020). The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence vary based on the “gravity, nature and number of prior offenses as they relate to the current offense.” McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 112 (Ind. 2016). “Even a minor criminal history is a poor reflection of a defendant's character.” Prince v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1171, 1174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[33] Trease argues that he did not violate his bond during the years between his arrest and his trial and that his current employer was complimentary of his character. Trease concedes that he has a criminal history but argues that he had not been convicted of any offenses since 2001. In 1992, Trease pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery. In 1992, he also pleaded guilty to “flight to avoid, a misdemeanor” and misdemeanor possession of drug equipment. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 82. In 2001, Trease was convicted of criminal drug conspiracy, possession to manufacture methamphetamine, and armed violence in Illinois, and he was sentenced to serve seven years. Although Trease's prior criminal history is remote, most of his criminal history is drug-related, and his current convictions are also drug-related.

[34] We also note that, during Trease's allocution, Trease did not accept any responsibility for his actions and merely claimed that his convictions were excessive and violated his rights. Given Trease's prior drug-related criminal history and lack of acceptance of responsibility for his own actions, we cannot conclude that his character renders his sentence inappropriate.

Conclusion

[35] We conclude that Trease's arrest was supported by probable cause, and the search incident to his arrest was proper. Further, any error in the search of his vehicle was harmless. Trease's sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or the character of the offender. Accordingly, we affirm.

[36] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Overruled on other grounds by Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. 1998).

Tavitas, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Brown concur. Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.