McCoy v. State
Decision Date | 29 August 2022 |
Docket Number | 22S-CR-294 |
Parties | James E. McCoy, Appellant (Defendant below) v. State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
James E. McCoy, Appellant (Defendant below)
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 22S-CR-294
Supreme Court of Indiana
August 29, 2022
Argued: June 30, 2022
Appeal from the Cass Superior Court, No. 09D01-2008-F6-290 The Honorable James K. Muehlhausen, Judge
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 21A-CR-2000
Attorney for Appellant Mark K. Leeman Logansport, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Chief Counsel, Appeals Office of the Indiana Attorney General Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
OPINION
GOFF, JUSTICE
Under the Indiana Bill of Rights, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated." Ind. Const. art 1, § 11. To ensure this protection, our constitution requires a warrant, issued "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing" the scope of the intended search and seizure. Id. A suspect may, of course, waive the warrant requirement by consenting to the search. But to secure consent from a suspect in custody, police must first inform that suspect of the right to consult with counsel. Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 28, 323 N.E.2d 634, 640 (1975). Without that advisement, any incriminating evidence seized during the search is inadmissible at trial. Id.
The defendant here, an apparent victim of a robbery and as a suspect under arrest for an unrelated offense, consented to a search of his home, ostensibly for the officer only to document the stolen property, without having received the requisite Pirtle warning. Because we see this case as a clear-cut violation of Pirtle's protections, and because we need not inquire into the officer's subjective views of whether the defendant was a victim or a suspect (as the State would have us do), we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during the search. We thus reverse the defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.
Facts and Procedural History
Officer Cody Scott, while on patrol for the Logansport Police Department, received a tip of a nearby robbery in progress. The pedestrian who reported this tip to Officer Scott described the suspect and identified the victim's residence, adding that the victim himself-James McCoy-had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.[1] Upon arriving at the house, Officer Scott observed McCoy, confirmed his identity, and
"immediately" detained him for the active warrant. Tr. Vol. II, p. 62. Once in handcuffs, McCoy explained that several items from his residence had been stolen and that the robber had driven away just as the officer had arrived. The suspected robber-an acquaintance of McCoy's-eventually returned to the residence, having been located in the vicinity by other officers. At this point, a female approached the scene, identifying herself to Officer Scott as Jalyn Parkevich. The incident, she explained to him, was little more than a domestic dispute. According to Jalyn, she had been at McCoy's house the night before where she "observed methamphetamine" and where McCoy "had offered her" this drug in exchange for sex. App. Vol. II, p. 17. Evidently angered by this illicit proposition, the alleged robber, Jalyn claimed, sought retaliation by stealing some of McCoy's possessions. Immediately following this exchange, and upon Officer Scott's request, McCoy identified several items belonging to him still inside the suspected robber's vehicle. The officer then asked McCoy if he would escort him inside the house to document any other missing items. McCoy, still in handcuffs, agreed to the request.
Once inside the house, Officer Scott detected the odor of burnt "spice" (or synthetic marijuana) emanating from upstairs. Id. When...
To continue reading
Request your trial