IN: Pirtle on advice of rights before person in custody asked for consent doesn’t apply to DRE

Defendant has no right to counsel before being asked for consent to a DRE. Pirtle on advice of rights before obtaining consent from a person in custody doesn’t apply here. Dycus v. State, 2018 Ind. LEXIS 564 (Oct. 3, 2018):

Indiana’s Constitution affords its citizens certain rights, including the right to counsel through all stages of a prosecution. That right entitles an accused to consult with counsel while in police custody. In Pirtle v. State, our Court relied on our State Constitution to require an advisement of rights prior to police obtaining consent to a search from a person in custody. So far, that requirement has been understood to apply only to searches of homes and vehicles. Field sobriety tests, chemical breath tests, blood draws, and cheek swabs have all been found to be searches not requiring an additional advisement of rights prior to consent. Here, we address whether our Pirtle requirement extends to Drug Recognition Exams (“DRE”); in other words, whether an advisement is necessary before police can obtain a person’s valid consent to a DRE. We find that no advisement is required. A DRE is not the type of search that calls for a Pirtle advisement.

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.