ILNews

Convincing evidence, conflicting record doom search challenge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A thief who went from car to car in a hotel parking lot was being watched by a hotel employee, and the credit card and cell phone belonging to guests that police later found on the man was convincing enough that an Indiana Court of Appeals panel discarded claims that the court should have suppressed the result of a search.

In David Rhodes v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1304-CR-321, the nine-page opinion of Judge Rudy R. Pyle III notes that while Rhodes’ attorney moved to suppress evidence of the cell phone and credit card at trial, there also was evidence in the record that Rhodes did not object.

The unanimous opinion joined by judges Michael Barnes and Terry Crone held that Rhodes waived his unlawful search and seizure argument that wouldn’t have prevailed anyway.

“Waiver notwithstanding, we conclude there is no error — fundamental or otherwise — because the specific facts before us support the conclusion that the evidence was properly seized pursuant to a search incident to arrest,” Pyle wrote.

After inspecting their vehicles, victimized hotel guests told police their cell phone and credit card were missing. Police relied on the hotel employee’s description of a suspect, and Rhodes, found in another nearby parking lot, matched the description, giving police probable cause to search him.
 
“Thus, the trial court did not err, let alone commit fundamental error, by admitting the cell phone and credit card into evidence. Accordingly, we affirm Rhodes’s convictions,” Pyle wrote.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT