David Wright v. State of Indiana
92 N.E.3d 1127
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- David Wright lived in a basement apartment at 220 E. Water St.; investigators executed a federal warrant at the upstairs unit (220½) seeking child pornography and, without obtaining a separate warrant, obtained computers from the downstairs unit after presenting residents with an ultimatum to either be removed while they sought a warrant or turn over equipment.
- FBI Special Agent Robertson used a scanning tool (OS Triage) that flagged at least one image on one of Wright’s computers but did not perform a forensic review; Robertson retained Wright’s two computers and returned others three days later.
- On January 25, 2016, Robertson told Wright he was not under arrest and asked to speak; during a conversation in Robertson’s vehicle (doors unlocked, other officer present), Wright admitted to sexual contact with two children; Wright was then taken into custody and later gave a recorded, Mirandized statement at the police station.
- The State charged Wright with four Level 1 felony counts of child molestation. Wright moved to suppress evidence from the January 22 search and his statements of January 25, arguing the search and subsequent statements were fruits of an unconstitutional seizure.
- The trial court suppressed evidence obtained from the January 22 search but denied suppression of Wright’s January 25 statements, finding those statements were obtained independently. Wright waived a jury; the bench convicted him. On appeal, the court reviewed whether admitting the statements was error under Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright’s January 25 statements were admissible despite the January 22 unconstitutional seizure of his computers | Statements attenuated/independent enough from the illegal search to be admissible | Statements were fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed under Article I, §11 | Reversed — statements were fruit of unconstitutional search; attenuation doctrine does not apply under Indiana Constitution |
| Validity of search/seizure of Wright’s computers on Jan. 22 | Warrant addressed internet account; consent/implied authority justified search | Warrant did not apply to Wright’s unit; consent coerced and invalid | Trial court found the Jan. 22 search violated Article I, §11 (State does not dispute this) |
| Appropriateness of Wright’s sentence | (State argued remaining sentence issues) | Wright challenged sentence | Not reached — reversal on evidentiary grounds made sentence discussion unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkinson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Shotts v. State, 925 N.E.2d 719 (Ind.) (Indiana §11 claims analyzed under totality-of-circumstances/reasonableness)
- Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252 (Ind.) (fruit of the poisonous tree and derivative evidence principles)
- Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131 (Ind. Ct. App.) (application of fruit of the poisonous tree under Article I, §11)
- Trotter v. State, 933 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App.) (attenuation doctrine inapplicable under Indiana Constitution)
- Herald v. State, 511 N.E.2d 5 (Ind. Ct. App.) (federal exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree described for comparative purposes)