State v. Turner, 304 Ga. 356

Background

In Dec. 2015 an infant was found unresponsive; EMTs took the child to the hospital where the infant later died. Appellee Turner and her mother Terry were at the home.
Officer Wells entered the home to comfort Terry after she asked him inside; Detective Bender and other officers then entered, questioned Terry, and photographed the scene.
Appellee was later escorted back to the house by Sgt. Garner and questioned; officers and the coroner photographed, videotaped, and seized items from the home (car seat, blankets, bottle, diaper bag, medicine, formula) without a warrant.
At the suppression hearing officers conceded they had no warrant, no probable cause, and did not obtain express consent to search or seize; they said the investigation was conducted under Georgia’s Death Investigation Act.
The trial court found the entries and subsequent search/seizure were warrantless, no exigent circumstances existed, and neither Turner nor her mother voluntarily consented (they merely acquiesced); the court suppressed the video, photographs, and seized items.
The State appealed; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the suppression order.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Turner (Appellee)'s Argument	Held
Whether Terry’s invitation to Officer Wells licensed a broader search by other officers	Terry consented to entry and that consent extended to other officers / searches	Terry only invited Wells in to sit; she did not consent to a search or to other officers; she merely acquiesced	Court: Invitation to Wells was limited and did not authorize a wider search; Terry did not voluntarily consent
Whether Appellee voluntarily consented when returned to the home and pointed out items	Appellee consented (per coroner’s testimony) to re-entry and a doll re-enactment, extending to evidence collection	Appellee was escorted back by police, questioned under pressure, and did not give voluntary, verbal consent to search or seizure	Court: Appellee did not voluntarily consent; she only acquiesced to police authority
Whether the coroner-led Death Investigation Act permitted warrantless search/evidence collection not subject to Fourth Amendment limits	Investigation was led by the coroner under the Death Investigation Act, so warrant requirement/exclusionary rule do not apply	Even if the Act sometimes applies, here law enforcement led the investigation and performed the searches/seizures without warrant or consent	Court: Record shows law enforcement, not coroner, led the investigation; trial court did not err in treating it as law-enforcement conduct requiring Fourth Amendment protection
Whether evidence collected in an unexplained child-death investigation is exempt from the exclusionary rule	Evidence from such investigations is not subject to exclusionary rule (argued for first time on appeal)	Not raised below; exclusionary rule issue was not litigated in trial court	Court: Argument not preserved for appeal; not considered

Key Cases Cited

Caffee v. State, 303 Ga. 557 (Ga. 2018) (warrant preference and suppression-review principles)
Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (Ga. 2015) (deference to trial court factual findings on suppression)
Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. 424 (Ga. 2009) (valid consent obviates need for warrant)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent-to-search voluntariness standard)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (objective scope of consent)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (warrant requirement and exceptions)
Raulerson v. State, 268 Ga. 623 (Ga. 1997) (State’s burden to prove voluntary consent)
State v. Tye, 276 Ga. 559 (Ga. 2003) (mere acquiescence insufficient for consent)
Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 (Ga. 2009) (trial court credibility deference on voluntariness)
State v. Allen, 298 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2015) (courts may rely on uncontradicted videotape evidence)
McClendon v. State, 299 Ga. 611 (Ga. 2016) (issues not raised below are not preserved on appeal)