inevitable discovery exception in Indiana

2017See Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (declining to adopt the inevitable discovery rule as part of Indiana constitutional law in light of the Indiana Supreme Court’s firm language in Brown), reh’g denied; Ammons, 770 N.E.2d at 935 .

2017See also Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (declining to adopt the inevitable discovery rule as part of Indiana constitutional law in light of the Indiana Supreme Court’s firm language in Brown), reh’g denied; Ammons, 770 N.E.2d at 935 .

2018Under the Fourth Amendment, “the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error.” Shultz v. State, 742 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

2018Under the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for in that instance ‘there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint.’” Shultz v. State, 742 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied.

2017We conclude that the search violated Watkins’s rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence discovered as a result of the search. 4 [34] To the extent the State suggests that we adopt the inevitable discovery exception as a matter of Indiana constitutional law, we observe that under the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for [in] that instance ‘there is no nexus sufficient to

2017We conclude that the search violated Watkins’s rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution and that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence discovered as a result of the search. 4 To the extent the State suggests that we adopt the inevitable discovery exception as a matter of Indiana constitutional law, we observe that under the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for [in] that instance ‘there is no nexus sufficient to provi

2018See Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 , 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). *714 [19] Because the gun would have been admissible at trial under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Winborn's motion to suppress.

2018See Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431 , 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). *714 [19] Because the gun would have been admissible at trial under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Winborn's motion to suppress.

2018One exception to the exclusionary rule is the inevitable discovery exception which "permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error." Gyamfi v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1131 , 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citation and quotation omitted). [16] Winborn contends that "whether or not [the] challenged evidence would have been properly obtained inevitably is too speculative." Appellant's Br. at 18.

2017See Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (declining to adopt the inevitable discovery rule as part of Indiana constitutional law in light of the Indiana Supreme Court’s firm language in Brown), reh’g denied; Ammons, 770 N.E.2d at 935 .

2018The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement that “serves an administrative, not investigatory, purpose—because when police lawfully impound a vehicle, they must also perform an administrative inventory search to document the vehicle’s contents to preserve them for the owner and protect themselves against claims of lost or stolen property.” Wilford v. State, 50 N.E.3d 371, 374 (Ind. 2016).

2018He also asserts: Indiana has not adopted the inevitable discovery rule and such an argument cannot permit the State of Indiana to meet its burden “[. . .] of proving the challenged evidence had an independent source or to establish the attenuation of the initial taint or the applicability of another exception to the general rule of exclusion.” Id. (quoting Herald v. State, 511 N.E.2d 5, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), reh’g denied, trans. denied). [19] We acknowledge that the inevitable discovery exception has not been adopted as a matter of Indiana constitutional law.

2018He also asserts: Indiana has not adopted the inevitable discovery rule and such an argument cannot permit the State of Indiana to meet its burden “[. . .] of proving the challenged evidence had an independent source or to establish the attenuation of the initial taint or the applicability of another exception to the general rule of exclusion.” Id. (quoting Herald v. State, 511 N.E.2d 5, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), reh’g denied, trans. denied). [19] We acknowledge that the inevitable discovery exception has not been adopted as a matter of Indiana constitutional law.

2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1609-CR-2079 | August 30, 2017 Page 15 of 17 containers that normally hold highly personal items.” Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957, 970 (Ind. 2001).

2015For example, we have not adopted the inevitable-discovery exception, see Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), reh’g denied ; Ammons v. State, 770 N.E.2d 927, 935 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied, or the attenuation doctrine, see Trotter v. State, 933 N.E.2d 572, 582 (Ind.Ct.App.2010).

2014Id; LaMunion v. State, 740 N.E.2d 576, 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 ).

2014Id.; LaMunion v. State, 740 N.E.2d 576, 581 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 ).

2013Even if we assume that Officer Brooks’s act of securing the handgun upon being informed of its location was somehow improper, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for [in] that instance ‘there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint.’” Schultz v. State, 742 4 Britt makes no independent argument concerning the legality of the inventory search of his vehicle. 5 N.E.2d 961, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Banks v. State, 681 N.E.2d 235, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)).

2013The inevitable discovery rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for in that instance there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint.” J.B. v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1197, 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

2013The inevitable discovery rule “permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have been located had there been no error, for in that instance there is no nexus sufficient to provide a taint.” J.B. v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1197, 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

2013See Holly v. State, 918 N.E.2d 323 , 325 n.2 (Ind. 2009) (finding it “unnecessary to resolve” the defendant’s article 1, section 11 claim in light of the 5 The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule has not been adopted as a matter of Indiana constitutional law.

2012Also, as the State correctly notes, Ridley does not challenge the fact that, at the time Officer Mann asked him the question about weapons he was in custody due to the presence of what Officer Mann observed to be marijuana in his lap, that he would accordingly be searched incident to that arrest, and that “even if a Fifth Amendment Miranda violation had any relevance here, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule would have permitted the introduction of the 7 handgun because that doctrine permits the introduction of evidence that would have been located had there been no err

2002Cf. Thurman, 602 N.E.2d at 552 (where "five or six police officers swooped in on [the defendant] and his companions, blocking the exit and ordering them out of the Oldsmobile" and we found that the defendant's consent to search his vehicle was "merely submission to the supremacy of the law rather than a voluntary relinguishment of a known right.") Thus, Ammons' consent to search his car was voluntary. 4 *935 The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Under the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule "permits the introduction of evidence that eventually would have b