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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT