Opinion ID: 852371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of Evidence from the Search of Defendant

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that police collected from his person following his arrest but before a search warrant issued. [15] The trial court denied his suppression motion before the penalty phase trial began, overruled his objection during the penalty phase trial, and admitted the items in evidence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the search fell within no exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches, and that he was entitled to the advice from counsel with respect to the search. We initially observe that the challenged evidence is relevant only to the defendant's guilt, not to his sentence. Guilt was not in issue, however, because the defendant pleaded guilty, and the sole remaining issue for trial was his sentence. The challenged evidence thus held little, if any, relevance to any penalty phase issues. But the State sought and obtained its admission as evidence in the penalty phase, and the defendant's appeal challenges its admissibility not on grounds of relevancy but as the fruits of an unconstitutional search and seizure. Even if its admission were to be found erroneous, such error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sentence and would not require that the sentence be reversed. The State does not argue harmless error, however, and we elect alternatively to address the defendant's search and seizure claim. Appellate courts review de novo a trial court's ruling on the constitutionality of a search or seizure. Membres v. State, 889 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind.2008), reh'g denied. The trial court's factual determinations, however, will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Id. On appeal, the reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence and considers conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind.2006). Responding to a young child's 911 call reporting that a home intruder was attacking her older sister, law enforcement officials entered the home to find the defendant holding a knife and covered with sweat, and fifteen-year-old Stacy Payne lying in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor, nude from the waist down, and with abdominal contents outside her body. Tr. at 1299, 1311. Handcuffed and placed in a police car, the defendant was given the Miranda [16] warnings, refused to sign the rights form, and asked to talk with a lawyer. While photographing the defendant at the scene, a police detective noticed a dark stain on the defendant's shirt and removed it from him. The police took the defendant to a nearby hospital to collect samples and there observed more stains on the defendant's clothing that appeared to be blood. Reasonably concerned that potential evidence could be lost or destroyed, the police collected these items, as well as hair stuck to the defendant's body, and swabbed dark stain areas of the defendant's skin. This evidence was obtained without the defendant's consent. As noted in footnote 15, the defendant contests the collection of his shirt, shorts, shoes, socks, gold chain, underwear, loose hairs from his leg, and swabs of suspected bloodstains on his skin. The defendant urges that the search violated both the federal and state constitutions. Under federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, warrantless searches are generally prohibited unless an exception exists. One recognized exception is for searches incident to a lawful arrest. Edwards v. State, 759 N.E.2d 626, 629 (Ind.2001). Moreover, a full search of the person after arrest is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a `reasonable' search under that Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 477, 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 441 (1973). And a search incident to lawful arrest under federal jurisprudence may involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. Id. at 227, 94 S.Ct. at 473, 38 L.Ed.2d at 436. Although a search incident to lawful arrest could be invalidated if it was extreme or patently abusive, id. at 236, 94 S.Ct. at 477, 38 L.Ed.2d at 441, the search of the defendant's person in this case was neither. Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement is the presence of exigent circumstances, including the need to prevent imminent destruction of evidence. Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 936-37 (Ind.2006). The warrantless search and resulting admission of evidence was proper in this case under the exceptions both for a search incident to lawful arrest and for one prompted by exigent circumstances creating a reasonable police concern for the likely imminent destruction of evidence. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred. In the defendant's sole argument asserting an independent basis under the Search and Seizure Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, § 11, he argues that his request for counsel, which occurred after he was in custody, precluded police from searching him. The defendant cites Pirtle v. State, 263 Ind. 16, 323 N.E.2d 634 (1975), and Williams v. State, 611 N.E.2d 649 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied, for support. In Pirtle, this Court reversed a murder conviction in part because certain admitted evidence resulted from a warrantless search of the defendant's apartment after the defendant consented to the search while in custody. 323 N.E.2d at 639-40. We held that the defendant was entitled to the presence and advice of counsel prior to making the decision whether to give such consent. Id. at 640; see also Sims v. State, 274 Ind. 495, 413 N.E.2d 556, 558-59 (1980), overruled in part on unrelated grounds by Wright v. State, 658 N.E.2d 563, 570 (Ind.1995). In the present case, unlike Pirtle, the search by police was not based upon the defendant's consent. This is not a case where a defendant was precluded from an opportunity to consult with counsel before deciding whether to consent to the search. The defendant consented to nothing, and the police searched him incident to his lawful arrest and upon independent probable cause. We find no Pirtle violation. We reject the defendant's claims that the admission of the evidence resulting from the search and seizure violated either the federal or state constitutions.