Opinion ID: 1229225
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: search & seizure

Text: The State argues that the trial court erred in finding Attorney ineffective for failing to challenge the search of Defendant at the train station. We agree. The PCR court found that Attorney failed to raise to the trial court by motion or argument the question of what probable cause or, if the circumstance had been appropriate, reasonable suspicion, provided police grounds to detain or search Defendant. The PCR court noted there was nothing in the trial transcript to allow the trial judge to assess the reasonableness of the search or whether the information relied upon by the police was credible. The PCR court concluded Attorney's failure to challenge the search denied Defendant a full and fair trial. Detective Vanhorn testified at trial that Defendant provided consent to search his luggage at the train station. Further, Defendant signed a written statement stating he consented to the search. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures may be waived by valid consent. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Warrantless searches and seizures are reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when conducted under the authority of voluntary consent. United States v. Durades, 929 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir.1991). The existence of consent is determined from the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751 (10th Cir.1993). On a motion to suppress, the State has the burden of proving the validity of the consent. Id. At trial, Defendant never contradicted the State's evidence that he voluntarily consented to the search. Moreover, no evidence was presented at the PCR hearing to demonstrate that Attorney had access to information at trial that would have impugned the State's assertion of voluntary consent. At the PCR hearing, Defendant simply denied ever giving consent for the search. [7] The PCR court held that Attorney should have challenged the search to determine if police had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct the search, or if exigent circumstances existed. However, it would have been futile for Attorney to have made such arguments since the State's theory for the search was consent, not probable cause or exigent circumstances. Thus, Defendant has failed to demonstrate how Attorney was deficient in this regard. We reverse the PCR court on this issue because there is no evidence of probative value to support the PCR court's decision.