ILNews

Seizure of man’s clothing from hospital not unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A detective’s seizure of a bag of clothing worn by a man who was shot – and later considered a suspect in a murder – and the admission of that clothing into evidence did not violate the man’s federal or state constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Thursday.

Julian Tuggle was admitted to the hospital suffering from gunshot wounds. When police arrived to interview him about the shooting, he told them he was a victim of an armed robbery and shooting. The detective took Tuggle’s clothing that he wore when he was shot to the crime lab in accordance with police procedure.

But Tuggle was actually shot during a confrontation involving several men at an Indianapolis apartment complex that left one man dead. Tuggle later became a suspect in that murder, and police performed DNA testing after obtaining a warrant. He was tried, convicted and sentenced for murder.

Tuggle argued the trial court should not have admitting the clothing the police seized from the hospital room into evidence, which contained the blood of the murder victim. The Court of Appeals noted that the detective didn’t search or test the clothing until Tuggle became a suspect in the murder, and he obtained a warrant prior to conducting any testing.

In addition, securing the clothing that the detective believed could be evidence in finding Tuggle’s assailant imposed no intrusion on Tuggle’s three-week recovery in the hospital. The need of law enforcement to investigate what was an obvious crime was high, the judges noted. As such, they found no violations of Tuggle’s federal or state constitutional rights.

Tuggle lied to police about his involvement with the murder, and the victim’s blood was found on Tuggle’s jeans, shirt, socks and shoes. A jury could reasonably infer that Tuggle went to the victim’s residence, fought with him and assisted another man in shooting the victim. The judges declined to re-weigh the evidence in Julian Tuggle v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1308-CR-413, and affirmed the murder conviction.
 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT