IN adopts “new crime exception” under state constitution; illegal search doesn’t immunize battery on police officer

“Many state and federal courts have applied an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule called the new-crime exception. This exception provides that notwithstanding a strong causal connection in fact between an illegal search or seizure by law enforcement and a defendant’s response, if the defendant’s response is itself a new and distinct crime, then evidence of the new crime is admissible notwithstanding the prior illegality. Because the purpose of the exclusionary rule-to deter police misconduct-is not advanced by suppressing evidence of a new crime committed by a defendant after an illegal search or seizure, we apply the new-crime exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. And we also conclude that this exception applies equally to the Indiana Constitution. Accordingly, evidence that C.P. battered a police officer after being illegally seized is admissible.” C.P. v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 475 (June 23, 2015).

Defendant and another stumbled drunk into the Indianapolis Greyhound Bus station. An off-duty officer working security motioned for them to come over, and they did. Defendant refused to remove his right hand from his pocket and he had no ID. The officer reasonably conducted a frisk. Johnson v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 474 (June 23, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.