State v. Foster
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1059
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Detective conducted a confidential informant's controlled cocaine buy from Foster on Dec. 14, 2009.
- On Jan. 4, 2010, detectives arrested Foster at his apartment without an arrest warrant, using a ruse about a 911 hang up.
- Officers entered the apartment, handcuffed Foster, and conducted a search; Miranda advisements were given.
- Foster made inculpatory statements in the police car and at the station after being transported for questioning.
- The State obtained an arrest warrant after Foster was in custody; Foster was charged with dealing cocaine; Foster moved to suppress the evidence.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence; the State appealed, and the appellate court affirmed suppression of the challenged statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless in-home arrest violated Indiana Constitution | Foster asserts Article I, Sec. 11 violation due to home intrusion without exigent circumstances. | State contends no suppression ruling on Indiana Constitution grounds or presents counterarguments to the in-home entry. | In-home warrantless arrest violated Article I, Sec. 11. |
| Whether the statements derived from the unlawful arrest are admissible | Admissions were tainted by unlawful arrest; attenuation doctrine should not apply. | Attenuation or intervening factors might sever the taint; Miranda warnings could render them admissible. | Attenuation did not apply; statements excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duran v. State, 930 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. 2010) (Indiana constitutional search-and-seizure reasonableness under totality of circumstances)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (balancing factors for reasonableness of search and seizure)
- Turner v. State, 862 N.E.2d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (attenuation considerations and connection between illegality and evidence)
- Quinn v. State, 792 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (attenuation doctrine; distinguishing taint from illegality)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (primary taint and attenuation framework)
- Trotter v. State, 933 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Indiana Supreme Court discussion on attenuation under Indiana Constitution)
- Barnes v. State, 946 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. 2011) (home entry legality; right to resist discussed but not controlling here)
- Cox v. State, 696 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. 1998) (Fourth Amendment analysis guidance in Indiana context)