Opinion ID: 1849099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: whether the role played in the investigation and prosecution of this case against the appellant by state farm insurance company, its officers, employees and agents, is a subversion of the criminal process, and a denial of the appellant's fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights.

Text: ś 57. This issue is procedurally barred as it is being raised for the first time on appeal. It is well-settled that a trial court will not be found in error on an issue upon which it was never requested to rule. Stidham v. State, 750 So.2d 1238, 1242 (Miss.1999). However, even if this issue had been properly preserved for appeal, it is without merit. ś 58. Conley argues that the police investigation of this capital murder was literally turned over to State Farm, an interested civilian entity. Conley asserts that this abdication of the investigation to a civilian entity violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ś 59. This specific issue is one of first impression in Mississippi. It is therefore helpful to review the law of other jurisdictions for guidance. Our sister state of Alabama concluded that as a general principle, the limited use of civilians in the context of criminal investigations, under the direct and continuing supervision of responsible law enforcement officials is allowed. Drill Parts & Serv. Co. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 619 So.2d 1280, 1286 (Ala.1993). In Commonwealth v. Sbordone, 424 Mass. 802, 678 N.E.2d 1184, 1188 (1997), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the police are not prohibited from utilizing civilians in appropriate circumstances where such assistance is necessary or will materially assist the police.... This case dealt with civilian assistance during the execution of a search warrant. Id. The court noted that any civilian participation must be closely supervised by the police and restricted to those acts within the civilian's special area of expertise. Id. at 1189. ś 60. There are also many sound policy reasons for holding the police responsible for appropriately limiting a civilian's role in the conduct of a warranted search. Id. [U]nlike civilians, police officers have taken an oath to uphold federal and state constitutions and laws and are trained to conduct a search lawfully and in accordance with the provisions of a warrant ... and, unlike sworn police officers, civilians are not subject to departmental discipline for any failure to adhere to the law. Id. This oath is of no small moment as a protection to our citizens when their privacy is lawfully intruded upon by a search pursuant to a warrant. Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993). ś 61. Conley admits that many policy arguments support civilian participation in criminal investigations. Civilian programs across the country, such as Crimestoppers, have helped to put thousands of criminals behind bars. Also, many times concerned citizens will volunteer information to law enforcement officials about criminal activity and the individuals involved. ś 62. Conley asserts that a review of the entire record reveals State Farm's lead role in the investigation. He points out that of the State's seventeen witnesses, seven were the direct result of, investigated by, and produced by State Farm employees, and that eleven of the State's twenty-four exhibits were directly produced by State Farm employees. The sheriff of Pike County also stated at trial, Well, I'd call them [State Farm] to see if they had come up with anything and they would call me to see if I had came up with anything new. ś 63. As for the witnesses and exhibits referred to above, the State argues that while these witnesses were indeed investigated by State Farm, the State also conducted its own separate investigation and interviews of these witnesses. However, the State readily admits that State Farm aided in the investigation of this murder. State Farm's help became necessary when Conley refused to give a statement to anyone other than State Farm despite several requests from the Pike County Sheriff's Department. Both the State and State Farm suspected foul play and therefore shared information in the case. ś 64. After reviewing the authority from other jurisdictions, we feel the better rule would allow civilian entities to participate in criminal investigations up to the point where further investigation would require judicial or legal authority. A civilian's investigation must stop short of invading the defendant's constitutional rights. The record in this case simply does not support the proposition that State Farm's investigation progressed to the point that required judicial or legal authority. State Farm's investigation consisted of interviewing voluntary witnesses, sharing information with the sheriff's department, and staying in touch with the police. State Farm's participation in the investigation simply does not constitute a violation of Conley's constitutional rights. Therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.