Format:  NCSA
 
  • Message from Prosecuting Attorney
  • Police / Prosecutor Updates
  • Indiana Legislative Updates
  • Effective Courtroom Performance for Police Officers
  • Media Statements by Law Enforcement
  • WWW Law Enforcement Links

  • 1998 Police / Prosecutor Updates
    January | February | March | April | May | June
    July | August | September | October | November | December

    1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003
    2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010

    POLICE / PROSECUTOR UPDATE - MARCH 1998

    Plain View Search
    OWI "Implied Consent"

    The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals recently decided two cases which are of some interest to law enforcement. One case dealt with the plain view doctrine and the person in need of aid exception to the search warrant requirement. The facts reveal that a hotel maid approached a certain room shortly after noon and knocked on the door. The check-out time for the room had passed, so the maid had the front desk call the room. After getting no response, the front desk called a second time, again with no response. The maid then knocked again and, still getting no response, used her key to enter the room. Although the door chain barred her entrance, she was able to observe the defendant apparently asleep on a couch and a candle and a "white powder substance" on a table in front of the couch. After a third call from the front desk received no response, the police were called. When further knocks by the police went unanswered, the manager unlocked the door and, after observing the defendant and the powdery substance on the table, unlatched the chain, allowing the police to enter. The police then aroused the defendant and his girlfriend and seized substantial amounts of cocaine and marijuana.

    Under the plain view doctrine, police may seize incriminating evidence without a warrant when two conditions are met. First, the initial police intrusion must have been permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent. Under the first requirement, it is not necessary for police to have a warrant to enter a place "when the facts suggest a reasonable belief that a person within the premises is in need of aid." In this case, repeated calls had gone unanswered and the maid had observed that the defendant was present in the room but did not respond to those calls. This could reasonably have suggested that the occupants of the room were in need of medical attention. Therefore, no warrant was required for the police to enter the room. Furthermore, as the police were legitimately in the room, they could observe the white powdery substance and drug paraphernalia in plain view, as these items were sitting on the table in front of the couch on which the defendant was sleeping.

    The second case dealt with the Implied Consent Law and the importance of an officer's testimony at a refusal hearing that the defendant was advised of the consequences of his refusal to submit to a chemical test. The defendant's license had been suspended for refusal to submit to a chemical test. He petitioned for judicial review but the trial court denied his requested relief.

    Ind. Code 9-30-6-7(a) requires that "if a person refuses to submit to a chemical test, the arresting officer shall inform the person that refusal will result in the suspension of the person's driving privileges." The defendant testified that he was asked to submit to a breath test but was never told that his refusal would result in the suspension of his driver's license. However, to quote the court of appeals, " More telling . . . is the testimony, of lack thereof, of the arresting officer." The officer testified that he informed the defendant of "the Implied Consent Law" at least five times and read to the defendant from his Implied Consent card at least four times. However, the officer never testified to the substance of his advisements to the defendant. The court of appeals stated: "We cannot assume . . . that [the officer] informed [the defendant], either from memory or by reading from his card, of the consequences of his refusal to submit to a breath test as required" by law. Therefore, the defendant's failure to submit to the test could not be considered a refusal.

    The lesson to be learned from this case is to never take shortcuts when testifying. Testimony that a person was advised of his "Miranda rights" without testifying to the substance of this advisement is insufficient if challenged. Likewise, testimony that a person was "informed of the Implied Consent Law" without specifying the substance of the advisement is not sufficient if challenged.

    Plain View

    Stewart v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. 1997).

    Consent

    Vetor v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1327 (Ind. App. 1997).

    This is a publication of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, covering various topics of interest to law enforcement officers. It is directed solely toward issues of evidence, criminal law and procedure. Please consult your city, town, or county attorney for legal advice relating to civil liability. Please direct any suggestions you may have for future issues to Steve Stewart at 285-6264.


  • Message from Prosecuting Attorney
  • Police / Prosecutor Updates
  • Indiana Legislative Updates
  • Effective Courtroom Performance for Police Officers
  • Media Statements by Law Enforcement
  • WWW Law Enforcement Links

  • Home Page | Disclaimer | Office Overview | Clark County Indiana
    Clark County Courts | Adult Protective Services | Child Support
    Domestic Violence | Controlled Substances | Juvenile Crime
    Death Penalty | For Police Officers | Victim / Witness Services
    Law Links | Contact Us | Search Our Site