Duane Crocker v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 286
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Crocker was stopped for speeding on I-65 in Tippecanoe County; Trooper Winters observed nervousness, bloodshot eyes, rental car in another name, and tremor when Crocker produced his license.
- Crocker gave inconsistent origin/destination answers; consent to search the rental vehicle was obtained after questioning and a Pirtle consent form was reviewed.
- Truck contained ten bales of marijuana, approximately 215 pounds, found after a trunk search with Crocker present.
- Crocker admitted he was paid $5,000 to drive the marijuana from Chicago to Cincinnati during a later interview at the post.
- Crocker moved to suppress the incriminating statements, arguing custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings occurred in the police vehicle.
- Trial court denied suppression; Crocker was convicted on three counts and sentenced to an aggregate term of three years with a year in community corrections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crocker was subjected to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings | Crocker argues interrogation in the patrol car was custodial and Miranda warnings were required. | State contends the stop was roadside and not custodial. | Crocker was in custody in the police vehicle; statements should have been suppressed. |
| Validity of Crocker's consent to search the vehicle | Consent was coerced or not knowingly given due to prior Miranda violation. | Consent was voluntary, informed by Pirtle advisements, and not coerced. | Consent to search was valid; physical evidence admissible. |
| Whether the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment despite Miranda violation | Miranda violation taints all obtained evidence. | Physical evidence independently valid under consent and independent probable cause. | Physical evidence admissible; Miranda violation only required suppression of statements. |
| Harmless error analysis of improperly admitted incriminating statements | Erroneous admission could have affected the verdict. | No real prejudice given overwhelming evidence of possession and intent. | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to substantial independent evidence and inferred intent to deliver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zook v. State, 513 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 1987) (custody for Miranda purposes hinges on restraint of freedom; custodial interrogation triggers warnings)
- Davies v. State, 730 N.E.2d 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (custodial atmosphere governs Miranda applicability)
- Lockett v. State, 747 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. 2001) (traffic stops can become custodial under Berkemer framework)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (roadside detentions may become custodial depending on restraint and duration)
- Callahan v. State, 719 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Hirshey v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Miranda violation does not automatically suppress physical evidence)
- Romack v. State, 446 N.E.2d 1346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (high quantity of narcotics supports inference of intent to deliver)
- Lampkins v. State, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997) (constructive possession can support drug convictions)
- Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4 (Ind. 1999) (knowledge of presence inferred from dominion and control)
- Taylor v. State, 482 N.E.2d 259 (Ind. 1985) (knowledge element may be inferred to prove construct possession)