Opinion ID: 1651241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the warrantless seizure of evidence from Gore's home was illegal.

Text: ¶ 25. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must determine whether the trial court's findings, considering the totality of the circumstances, are supported by substantial credible evidence. Where supported by substantial credible evidence, this Court shall not disturb those findings. Moore v. State, 933 So.2d 910, 914 (Miss.2006) (citations omitted). ¶ 26. Gore argues that since the seizure of the vibrator in the present case was made neither incident to arrest and without consent, and without probable cause, it should have been suppressed. The State responds that: after waiving his rights, Gore voluntarily spoke with the officers, and offered to retrieve the vibrator that he claimed M.G. found and used on herself. There was no full-blown search conducted by the officers, and to the extent the situation could be characterized as a search, it was consensual. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied Gore's motion to suppress. ¶ 27. The United States Constitution and the Mississippi State Constitution guarantee citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, and possessions against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures. Moore, 933 So.2d at 916 (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 23). But [v]oluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement. Id. (citing Morris v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000)). [W]here consent is given, the State is not required to demonstrate knowledge; rather, `the burden [is] on the defendant to show impaired consent or some diminished capacity.' Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 607 So.2d 23, 29 (Miss.1991)). Voluntary consent is a question of fact to be determined by the total circumstances. Id. (quoting Jones, 607 So.2d at 27). ¶ 28. At trial, the State moved to introduce the vibrator into evidence, and Gore objected, contending that he did not consent to the search of his residence by Deputy Head and Investigator Tucker. With the jury out, the circuit court examined Deputy Head. Deputy Head testified that, during questioning in the early morning hours of May 12, 2007, Gore had discussed the vibrator and then had said he would get it. And I said, show me, because I was worried [there] may be a gun in the house, so he directed us straight to the bedroom, and that's where we pulled the box out from under the bed. The circuit court then overruled Gore's objection. ¶ 29. This Court concludes that the circuit court's denial of Gore's motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence.... Moore, 933 So.2d at 914. The circuit court was presented with evidence that Gore was informed of his Miranda rights, that he stated that he understood those rights as a former law enforcement officer, and that he then proceeded to recount his version of the incident to the officers on his front porch. In so doing, Gore noted that the vibrator was under his bed and offered to retrieve it. Concerned that Gore may have had a weapon in the house, Deputy Head requested that Gore lead him to the vibrator. See Norman v. State, 302 So.2d 254, 257-58 (Miss.1974) (items may be seized as a result of a cursory viewing of the area for persons or weapons which might present a security risk to the officers.); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer....). Gore then voluntarily led the officers to his bedroom, where the vibrator was retrieved. Under these circumstances, Gore failed to rebut the evidence presented that he gave consent and further failed to satisfy his burden of proving impaired consent or some diminished capacity. Moore, 933 So.2d at 916. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.