State v. Turner, 304 Ga. 356

In December 2015 appellee Arielle Turner’s ten-week-old infant was found unresponsive, taken to the hospital, and later died; investigators observed no obvious signs of foul play.
Multiple officers, a detective, a crime-scene investigator, and the county coroner responded to the Turner residence; no search warrant was obtained and officers admitted they lacked probable cause or suspicion of a crime when they searched.
Officer Wells initially entered at the invitation of Turner’s mother, Terry, to sit inside; other officers and the coroner subsequently entered, photographed, videotaped, and seized items (car seat, blankets, pacifiers, bottle, diaper bag with medicine/formula) identified during interviews.
Appellee was escorted back to the home, questioned, and pointed out items relevant to the infant’s sleep environment; Sergeant Garner recorded a short video and officers removed and stored evidence at the sheriff’s office.
At the suppression hearing officers conceded they neither sought consent nor a warrant and invoked Georgia’s Death Investigation Act as justification; the trial court found no voluntary consent, no exigent circumstances, and suppressed the evidence.
The State appealed, arguing (1) consent by appellee and her mother justified the search, and (2) the coroner-led death-investigation authority or the nature of the investigation rendered the exclusionary rule inapplicable.

Issue	State's Argument	Turner's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless entry/search was justified by consent	Both Turner and her mother voluntarily consented to entry, search, photos, video, and seizures	Neither gave voluntary consent; they only acquiesced to police authority	No voluntary consent; the trial court’s finding was upheld
Whether initial consent by the mother to one officer extended to other officers/search	Mother’s invitation to Officer Wells permitted others to enter and search	Any consent to Wells was limited to sitting/entry and did not authorize broader search by other officers	Initial consent was limited; it did not authorize subsequent searches by other officers
Whether the coroner’s authority under the Death Investigation Act allowed warrantless evidence collection (and thus avoids Fourth Amendment limits)	Coroner-led SUIDI investigation authorized warrantless collection; evidence not subject to exclusionary rule	Investigation was led by law enforcement, not the coroner; thus Fourth Amendment applies and exclusionary rule controls	Investigation was effectively led by police; court did not accept State’s coroner-authority argument
Whether the State may raise on appeal that exclusionary rule does not apply to unexplained-child-death investigations	(Raised for first time on appeal) Evidence collected during SUIDI not subject to exclusionary rule	Issue was not raised below; exclusionary rule applies	Argument waived—issue not preserved for appellate review

Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (review standard for suppression findings)
Caffee v. State, 303 Ga. 557 (warrant requirement and exceptions)
Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. 424 (consent eliminates need for warrant/probable cause)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (warrant generally required for searches)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary under totality)
Raulerson v. State, 268 Ga. 623 (State’s burden to prove voluntary consent)
State v. Tye, 276 Ga. 559 (acquiescence to authority not voluntary consent)
Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 (deference to trial court credibility findings on voluntariness)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent judged by objective reasonableness)
State v. Peterson, 273 Ga. 657 (scope limits when additional officers join intrusion)
State v. Allen, 298 Ga. 1 (appellate court may rely on uncontradicted videotape evidence)
McClendon v. State, 299 Ga. 611 (issues not raised below are not preserved on appeal)