from the Madison Circuit Court Trial Court Cause No.
48C01-1406-FB-1086 The Honorable Angela Warner Sims, Judge
Attorney for Appellant Anthony C. Lawrence Anderson, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General
of the Case
Deshawn Lamont Redfield appeals his convictions for unlawful
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, as a
Class B felony; possession of cocaine, as a Class C felony;
pointing a firearm, as a Class D felony; and resisting law
enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Redfield raises one
issue for our review, namely, whether an officer violated
Redfield's right to be free from unreasonable search and
seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution when the officer seized Redfield for
officer safety but without pre-existing reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity. We hold that, on these facts, the
officer's seizure of Redfield was reasonable. Thus, we
affirm the trial court's judgment.
and Procedural History
In the early morning hours of June 15, 2014, Anderson Police
Department ("APD") Officer Gabe Bailey responded to
a dispatch report of a subject with a firearm at the
Birdhouse bar. The report, which was based on an anonymous
tip,  described the subject as a black male
wearing a gray shirt and a hat. In the few moments it took
for dispatch to describe the suspect, Officer Bailey had
already arrived at the Birdhouse, and he immediately observed
a person who matched that description outside the bar.
Officer Bailey radioed for backup.
While awaiting backup, Officer Bailey approached the man,
Redfield, who was talking to another man, Eric Welker.
Officer Bailey attempted to "stall" while backup
arrived and "made contact with" Welker,
"patted him down, " and "spoke to him
briefly." Tr. Vol. II at 48. Officer Bailey stated that
APD had received a call about "somebody with a
gun." Id. At that point, Redfield "took a
step" away from Officer Bailey and "blade[d] his
body away" from Officer Bailey's line-of-sight
"several times." Id. at 48, 51. That is,
Redfield moved the right side of his body away from Officer
Bailey's vantage point while he walked away from Officer
Bailey. Further, and while only about five feet from Officer
Bailey, Redfield made a "drawing motion" with his
right hand as if he were "drawing for a gun."
Id. at 49. Officer Bailey thought he "was
go[ing to] be in a gun fight" and immediately drew his
sidearm and ordered Redfield to "Stop!" and
"Let me see your hands!" Id.
Redfield disregarded Officer Bailey's commands and
continued to walk away. After Redfield had gone about fifty
feet and continued to disregard Officer Bailey's
commands, Officer Bailey tased Redfield, which knocked
Redfield down. Officer Bailey again ordered Redfield to put
his hands out, and Redfield initially complied. But he then
made a quick motion with his right hand and grabbed a firearm
"[o]ut of the side of his pants." Id. at
59. Officer Bailey fired the taser again, and, while Redfield
was momentarily incapacitated by the taser, Officer Bailey
was able to acquire Redfield's firearm.
Thereafter, backup arrived and Redfield was arrested. His
firearm was found to have been loaded with one hollow-point
bullet along with regular ammunition. Officer Bailey also
discovered crack cocaine on Redfield's person.
The State charged Redfield with unlawful possession of a
firearm by a serious violent felon, as a Class B felony;
possession of cocaine, as a Class C felony; pointing a
firearm, as a Class D felony; and resisting law enforcement,
as a Class A misdemeanor. Redfield filed a motion to suppress
the evidence on the grounds that he had been unlawfully
seized by Officer Bailey and, as such, the evidence obtained
pursuant to that seizure was obtained in violation of the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, for
the same reasons, Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana
Constitution. The trial court denied Redfield's motion to
suppress after a hearing. At his ensuing jury trial, Redfield
renewed his Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11
objections to the State's evidence, and the court
overruled his objections. The jury found Redfield guilty as
charged, and the court entered its judgment and sentence
against Redfield accordingly. This appeal ensued.
Redfield's arguments that "police violated his
Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 rights" raise
"questions of law we review de novo."
Zanders v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No.
15S01-1611-CR-571, slip op. at 4-5 (Ind. May 4, 2017). As the
United States Supreme Court has explained with respect to the
Fourth Amendment, "as a general matter determinations of
reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed
de novo on appeal, " while "findings of
historical fact" underlying those legal determinations
are reviewed "only for clear error." Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996). The Indiana
Supreme Court applies the same standard under Article 1,
Section 11. E.g., McIlquham v. State, 10
N.E.3d 506, 511 (Ind. 2014). In other words, we review
whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists
"under a standard 'similar to other sufficiency
issues'-whether, without reweighing the evidence, there
is 'substantial evidence of probative ...