ILNews

COA: Statements not made in illegal detention

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a defendant's motion to suppress statements given to authorities while detained, finding he was legally detained because police already had probable cause to arrest him.

In Alton Moss v. State of Indiana, No. 27A04-0805-CR-257, Alton Moss was charged with felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon following the murder of Jamie Smith at his home in Grant County. A witness mentioned Moss' name as a person inside the home at the time of the murder. Months later, a Grant County inmate told police Moss confessed to killing Smith while attempting to rob him of marijuana, and the grandfather of one of Moss' children told police Moss had made incriminating statements about the Smith killing.

After Moss' fiancee told police Moss had told her he and his brother tried to steal drugs from a man, who was shot, police arrested Moss on an outstanding body attachment from a civil case in Howard County. Police didn't tell Moss or his fiancee that there was also a body attachment in a different matter on Moss in Grant County. Police told the fiancee she couldn't post bond in the Howard County matter. Afterwards, Moss signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and gave his version of what happened at Smith's home.

After he was charged, Moss filed a motion to suppress his statements, arguing they were given during an illegal detention, he gave them involuntarily, and Miranda violations made them inadmissible. The trial court denied the motion, but granted his order for interlocutory appeal only on the grounds of the legality of his detention.

The Court of Appeals found some merit in Moss' argument that he was illegally detained because his fiancee tried to post bond before he was questioned but wasn't able to, and that neither of them were aware of the Grant County body attachment and bond until after he was interrogated. The detective who told Moss' fiancee she couldn't post bond was misleading, but the fiancee never questioned why she couldn't post bond nor did she try to post it elsewhere, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. Plus, there's no evidence Moss invoked his right to offer bail.

"In any event, we need not determine the legality of Moss' detention vis-a-vis the two body attachments and bonds, because we agree with the State that the police had an independent basis on which to hold Moss: probable cause to arrest Moss for his involvement in the crimes against Smith," she wrote.

The police had probable cause based on the testimony of several people linking Moss to the crime even before Moss gave his statements while detained.

The appellate court remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings and noted that if he is convicted, he could raise his other two issues on appeal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT