Moise Joseph v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 494
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Joseph was convicted of burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, attempted armed robbery, and criminal confinement.</br>Police entered and searched Joseph’s apartment without a warrant, which the State acknowledges may have violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Joseph was read Miranda advisements at the scene, then transported to the police station where Detective Brown questioned him about the evidence and his involvement, leading to additional statements.
- The trial court suppressed evidence recovered from the apartment and the officers’ at-scene statements, but admitted Joseph’s statements to Detective Brown; the jury found him guilty and he was sentenced.
- On appeal, Joseph argued the admissibility of his statements to Brown tainted by the illegal, warrantless apartment search (fruit of the poisonous tree).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment and the statements to Brown were not sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless entry and search violated the Fourth Amendment | Joseph argues improper warrantless entry/search violated Fourth Amendment. | State concedes lack of probable cause and no exigent circumstances, making entry unlawful. | Yes; warrantless entry/search violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| Whether Joseph’s statements to Detective Brown were attenuated from the illegal search | Attenuation doctrine should apply; Miranda warnings and time gap dissipate taint. | Constant custody, immediacy of questioning, and prior statements negate attenuation. | No; statements were not sufficiently attenuated; taint not dissipated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (attenuation doctrine governs taint from illegal arrest)
- Turner v. State, 862 N.E.2d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (attenuation factors include time, intervening circumstances, and misconduct nature)
- Snellgrove v. State, 569 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 1991) (Miranda warnings as factor; probable cause and timing affect attenuation)
- Foster v. State, 950 N.E.2d 760 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (minimal time between illegality and statements; constant interaction undermines attenuation)
- Quinn v. State, 792 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (attenuation balanced against taint; Wong Sun consideration)
- Taylor v. State, 842 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. 2006) (Fourth Amendment privacy expectations and warrant exceptions guidance)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1979) (scope of search and presence of others during seizure)
- Cole v. State, 878 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (attenuation and evidentiary suppression considerations)