Tuggle v. State of Indiana - 4/15/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  April 15, 2014 
3:00 PM  EST

3 p.m. 49A05-1308-CR-413. Tuggle arrived at an Indianapolis hospital emergency room, claiming to be the victim of a shooting and an armed robbery.  Although the police seized Tuggle’s clothing from the hospital and obtained a search warrant prior to performing any DNA testing, Tuggle contends that the DNA test results confirming that Tuggle was a suspect in another shooting should not have been admitted into evidence.  Tuggle argues that he never relinquished any privacy rights in his property and the clothing showed no immediate apparent incriminating characteristics.  Thus, Tuggle claims that the initial seizure of his clothing violated his rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.  Therefore, Tuggle contends that the results of the DNA testing on the clothing were improperly admitted into evidence.       

The State counters that the clothing was properly seized and secured under both the plain view doctrine and the presence of exigent circumstances.  The State argues that a search warrant allowing the DNA testing was properly obtained, and there was no violation of either the Fourth Amendment or the Indiana Constitution.  Hence, the State asserts that the results of the DNA testing pointing to Tuggle as a suspect of the murder were properly admitted into evidence.

Tuggle was ultimately convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years of incarceration.  This appeal ensues.

Back to Events
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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT