Kimberley M. Couch v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
32A01-1704-CR-878
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- On July 9, 2016, Deputy Lenover knocked at Kimberley Couch’s rental home after a complaint of a marijuana odor; Couch stepped outside and admitted she had smoked marijuana earlier.
- After the admission, Deputy Lenover read Miranda warnings, then asked for consent to search or said he could seek a warrant; Couch consented and let him inside.
- Inside, Couch produced a hollowed book containing rolling papers and a pipe; a houseguest produced a bag with plant material resembling marijuana.
- Couch was charged with possession of marijuana (Class B misdemeanor) and possession of paraphernalia (Class C misdemeanor); at bench trial she was acquitted of marijuana possession but convicted of paraphernalia possession.
- Couch appealed, arguing the warrantless search was unconstitutional because she was in custody and did not receive a Pirtle advisement (the right-to-counsel/consultation advisement required under Indiana law before obtaining consent from a person in custody).
- The Court of Appeals held the encounter was custodial for Pirtle purposes, the required advisement was not given, the consent was invalid, and the evidence obtained was inadmissible; without that evidence the conviction could not stand and was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Couch’s consent to search was valid under the Indiana Constitution | State: Consent was voluntary after Miranda and Couch voluntarily allowed entry, so evidence admissible | Couch: She was in custody when she admitted and was not given a Pirtle advisement (right to consult counsel), so consent was invalid | Court: Encounter was custodial; absent a Pirtle advisement consent was invalid and search unconstitutional |
| Whether conviction can stand without the seized evidence | State: Other facts supported conviction | Couch: Exclude evidence obtained in unconstitutional search, leaving insufficient proof | Court: With the tainted evidence excluded, insufficient evidence supports paraphernalia conviction; reversal ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (recognizing warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
- Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975) (holding custodial waiver to consent requires advisement about right to consult counsel)
- Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 1995) (Pirtle advisement required for persons in custody; Miranda alone insufficient)
- Leonard v. State, 73 N.E.3d 155 (Ind. 2017) (standard of review for admissibility and constitutional claims)
- Clarke v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. 2007) (reinforcing Pirtle requirement under Indiana Constitution)