Opinion ID: 4318316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The police misconduct

Text: The police did not commit flagrant misconduct here or exploit the illegal search. Based on his testimony at the suppression hearing, Agent Robertson believed he presented Wright with two constitutional options: give verbal consent or wait for a federal search warrant. In fact, he testified that FBI procedure allowed him to get either written or verbal consent to a warrantless search. Although he thoroughly discussed the two options with 220’s occupants, Agent Robertson failed to inform them (and Wright) that they could refuse consent. That omission prompted the trial court to suppress the evidence from the search. While we certainly don’t condone Robertson’s oversight, especially when he had consent forms in his vehicle, his failure to tell Wright he could refuse consent does not strike us as flagrant misconduct. What’s more, this record does not suggest the police manipulated Wright’s invalid consent to search his computers in order to coerce him into confessing to child molestation. Agent Robertson arrived at Wright’s home in the course of a federal child-pornography investigation. He did not suspect Wright to be a child molester. When Agent Robertson spoke with Wright on the Monday following the search and seizure, he took pains to make sure Wright understood he was not under arrest and not required to talk to him. He allowed Wright to choose where they spoke. Once in the car, he reminded Wright the car doors were unlocked, and Wright could stop the conversation and leave at any time. Only after Wright admitted to having child pornography on his computers did Agent Robertson say that FBI protocol required him to speak to any children living in the home. He did not ask Wright if he had any sexual contact with the children, but Wright voluntarily confessed to the molestations. Robertson immediately ended the interview and sought direction from local police because his federal investigation just gained a state layer. Upon taking custody of Wright, the Hartford City Police behaved reasonably. The record does not suggest Detective Crouse exploited the Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-00166 | October 4, 2018 Page 16 of 19 illegal search. Detective Crouse Mirandized Wright and obtained a written waiver from him before interviewing him. Considering the totality of the circumstances—the timeline, the intervening circumstances, and the police misconduct—we conclude that Wright’s confessions were sufficiently attenuated from the unreasonable search so as to be purged of the primary taint. There was a meaningful time gap between the search and Wright’s confessions during which he had no further contact with law enforcement. Once he did encounter law enforcement again, Wright voluntarily spoke with Agent Robertson and Detective Crouse and disclosed he molested two children. And scrutinizing the police conduct here shows that law enforcement did not flagrantly flout Wright’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and the police did not exploit that illegal search to secure his confessions. Accordingly, Wright’s statements amounted to admissible evidence, and the trial court rightly admitted them. IV. Wright’s 60-year sentence is not inappropriate. Since it reversed the convictions, the Court of Appeals did not address Wright’s argument that his sixty-year sentence proved inappropriate considering his crime and character. Wright requested we revise his sentence downward to thirty years and the State countered by asking us to revise the sentence upward to 120 years. Having granted transfer and taking jurisdiction over this matter, we are duty-bound to address these arguments now. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6 (guaranteeing the right to one appeal); Ind. Crim. Rule 11; Clark v. State, 506 N.E.2d 819, 821 (Ind. 1987). The Indiana Constitution gives this Court the power to review and revise criminal sentences. art. 7, § 4. “We may revise a sentence authorized by statute, if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” Gibson v. State, 51 N.E.3d 204, 215 (Ind. 2016) (citing App. R. 7(B)). The defendant “bears the burden of persuading us that his sentence is inappropriate.” Id. Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-CR-00166 | October 4, 2018 Page 17 of 19 We find that Wright did not meet his burden here. He argued his character alone merited a lesser sentence; specifically, Wright noted he had no criminal history, he admitted his crimes, he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct, and he had been victimized as a child. We find these reasons unconvincing, especially in light of the crimes he committed. Over the course of a year, Wright repeatedly molested two of his best friend’s young children. He occasionally filmed himself abusing four-year-old F.S. and showed it to eleven-year-old W.S. During this time Wright also viewed and downloaded child pornography. No positive character traits, no matter how admirable or sympathetic, can redeem these crimes. The State rightly points out that our constitutional authority to review and revise criminal sentences under Article 7, Section 4 also includes the power to increase a defendant’s sentence. See Kimbrough v. State, 979 N.E.2d 625, 630 (Ind. 2012); Carpenter v. State, 950 N.E.2d 719, 721 (Ind. 2011); Akard v. State, 937 N.E.2d 811, 813 (Ind. 2010); McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 750 (Ind. 2009). But we decline to exercise that power here. Wright’s sixty-year sentence essentially amounts to a life-sentence for this thirty-three-year-old credit restricted felon. Even though Wright committed unspeakable crimes against children, we think his sixty-year sentence not inappropriate.