Two Arrested on Drug Charges after Vehicle Runs Out of Gas

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    22,178
    113
    Ripley County
    Yesterday, October 15th, at approximately 1:00 pm, two Indianapolis residents were arrested on numerous drug related charges after their vehicle ran out of gas on I-65 in Jackson County.

    The investigation by Trooper Andrew Garrett began when he was dispatched to check on a 2008 Ford Mustang and the occupants on I-65 Northbound near the 46 mile marker. The dispatch also indicated that the driver of the vehicle was walking into traffic while indicating he needed assistance.

    Upon arriving on the scene, Trp. Garrett learned that the vehicle was out of gas. Trp. Garrett observed indicators of criminal activity while speaking to the occupants. After obtaining consent to search the vehicle, Trp. Garrett located suspected cocaine, controlled substances, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.

    The driver of the vehicle. Benjamin R. Farr, age 35, Indianapolis, Indiana and passenger, Daniel M. Pryor, age 25, Indianapolis, Indiana were both arrested on charges of Dealing Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Paraphernalia.

    They were both transported to the Jackson County jail where they were remanded to the custody of the jail staff pending their initial appearances in the Jackson County Circuit Court.
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Stupid criminals...the most common kind.

    Not satisfied with just not filling the tank up while running his drugs he needed to run around in traffic to make sure everyone noticed...and then consented to a search with said drugs in vehicle.
     

    DCR

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 6, 2009
    691
    63
    I read the crime reports in the weekly newspaper my wife gets from where she grew up in a small town in KY.
    I am not exaggerating, this is a very common report -- Man arrested on I-71 by KSP, speeding 85 in a 70, no license plate, no registration, suspended license, no insurance, outstanding warrants, drug paraphernalia.
     

    Bigtanker

    Cuddles
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Aug 21, 2012
    21,688
    151
    Osceola
    The driver of the vehicle. Benjamin R. Farr, age 35, Indianapolis, Indiana and passenger, Daniel M. Pryor, age 25, Indianapolis, Indiana were both arrested on charges of Dealing Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Paraphernalia.

    So it's a safe bet to say the Mr. Farr has at least one Pryor, right?
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    In this case, they were sittin' dirty.

    Yo, yo need some gas to be rollin' dirty! :):

    It has always amazed me how many people, knowing they are holding some kind of contraband, consent to a search, even when I kind of suspected they were dirty but were well short of having the necessary probable cause to justify a warrantless search, without consent.
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,402
    77
    Mooresville
    Yo, yo need some gas to be rollin' dirty! :):

    It has always amazed me how many people, knowing they are holding some kind of contraband, consent to a search, even when I kind of suspected they were dirty but were well short of having the necessary probable cause to justify a warrantless search, without consent.

    “If I consent, maybe he’ll think I don’t have anything and not do it”.
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    “If I consent, maybe he’ll think I don’t have anything and not do it”.

    I've often questioned whether that was part of their "magical thinking." Or maybe, hoping against hope, that we wouldn't find anything. Whatever, it isn't rational.

    However, it is a lack of rational thought that gets a lot of people in trouble.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,869
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    I've often questioned whether that was part of their "magical thinking." Or maybe, hoping against hope, that we wouldn't find anything. Whatever, it isn't rational.

    However, it is a lack of rational thought that gets a lot of people in trouble.

    From what it looks like on 'Live PD', even if you don't consent to the search, they bring in a dog that hits on the car (almost always), and that gives probable cause. Is that not correct? Or in other words, do you need some kind of cause to have the dog sniff the car, other than your suspicion?

    .
     

    MarkC

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 6, 2016
    2,082
    63
    Mooresville
    From what it looks like on 'Live PD', even if you don't consent to the search, they bring in a dog that hits on the car (almost always), and that gives probable cause. Is that not correct? Or in other words, do you need some kind of cause to have the dog sniff the car, other than your suspicion?

    .

    If there is not probable cause, but you can get a dog to the scene of the stop, then a positive dog sniff will provide probable cause. However, it is not permissible to lengthen the traffic stop, in most cases, to wait for the dog to arrive. Or, in other words, the dog has to arrive and conduct the sniff in the time that it would normally take to complete the traffic stop.

    No probable cause or even reasonable suspicion has to exist to justify a dog sniff of a car, again, assuming the dog can get there and make the sniff without prolonging the traffic stop.

    If there is probable cause that there is contraband is a motor vehicle, then we generally don't need the dog sniff. The probable cause justifies a warrantless search of the vehicle (Carroll and Chambers and their "progeny" cases).

    Back when I was on the road, and this has been a while, we did not have as many drug dogs available. ISP then had none, and we had to rely on the handful that local and county agencies had. Or, maybe dogs were still evolving from wolves. It was a long time ago, and my memory isn't what it once was. :):
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,858
    113
    Merrillville
    They could have been hoping if they consent, the officer would decide not to search.

    They could have been hoping if they consent, the officer would do only a cursory search, and not find the drugs.

    They could have figured, it's easier to let a lawyer handle it in court, than risk getting shot.
     

    mmpsteve

    Real CZ's have a long barrel!!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 14, 2016
    5,869
    113
    ..... formerly near the Wild Turkey
    Thanks for the explanation, Sir. I was hoping my question didn't sound too snarky or naive, considering I mentioned Live PD. If you've watched it, do you have any general thoughts on it, like how real it is, or staged? It's pretty interesting for us civilians, even if we only get a glimpse of what it's really like.



    If there is not probable cause, but you can get a dog to the scene of the stop, then a positive dog sniff will provide probable cause. However, it is not permissible to lengthen the traffic stop, in most cases, to wait for the dog to arrive. Or, in other words, the dog has to arrive and conduct the sniff in the time that it would normally take to complete the traffic stop.

    No probable cause or even reasonable suspicion has to exist to justify a dog sniff of a car, again, assuming the dog can get there and make the sniff without prolonging the traffic stop.

    If there is probable cause that there is contraband is a motor vehicle, then we generally don't need the dog sniff. The probable cause justifies a warrantless search of the vehicle (Carroll and Chambers and their "progeny" cases).

    Back when I was on the road, and this has been a while, we did not have as many drug dogs available. ISP then had none, and we had to rely on the handful that local and county agencies had. Or, maybe dogs were still evolving from wolves. It was a long time ago, and my memory isn't what it once was. :):
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom