Cass County oral argument heard by Indiana Supreme Court

Jul. 1—Lebanon- Indiana Supreme Court justices traveled to Lebanon on Thursday to hear oral arguments for a Cass County court case.

The case, James E. McCoy v. State of Indiana, centers around Miranda and Pirtle rights. Miranda rights refer to a suspect's right not to incriminate themselves through speech, and Pirtle rights refer to a suspect's right to consent to searches.

The case began in August 2020 when McCoy's residence was robbed and the Logansport Police Department was called. Someone at the scene advised the officer that McCoy had an active arrest warrant.

The officer confirmed the warrant but did not know why it was issued at that time. He placed McCoy under arrest.

Before leaving the scene, the officer asked McCoy if he wanted to walk through the residence to identify any objects that might have been stolen. Once inside the residence, the officer smelled burned drugs.

A warrant issued to search the residence resulted in McCoy being charged with possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of unlawful a syringe, possession of marijuana with a prior conviction, and possession of paraphernalia.

A jury found McCoy guilty of possession of methamphetamine and possession of marijuana with a prior conviction in August 2021.

McCoy appealed the verdict on the basis that he was not informed of his Miranda and Pirtle rights before allowing the officer to enter his residence, so he never consented to a search. He argued that the charges should ultimately be dropped since he was not aware of his rights.

The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed. Now the case is awaiting a ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court to determine whether McCoy's Miranda and Pirtle rights were violated.

Thursday's oral argument took place in Lebanon to celebrate Justice Steven David's last oral argument before he retires. David spent 15 years as a trial judge in Boone County before joining the Indiana Supreme Court.

Lawyers from each side presented their arguments in front of the court and answered questions from the judges. Logansport lawyer Mark Leeman represented McCoy.

"This case presents this court with the first opportunity in 50 years to affirm that Pirtle is just as much about protecting Indiana's venerable right to counsel as it is about protecting Indiana's rights against unreasonable search and seizure," Leeman said.

Leeman argued that McCoy did not understand the full ramifications of letting the officer enter his residence and said any reasonable lawyer would have advised him not to allow the officer to enter.

"This is a critical phase when you go up to a gentleman in custody that the officer knows is in custody and ask to search his house," Leeman said. "Why is that the case? Because without a lawyer, McCoy would not have appreciated the magnitude of the rights at stake when he consented to the search. McCoy thought he was consenting to a home search to give him relief from a crime."

Indiana Deputy Attorney General Courtney Staton argued on behalf of the state that the police officer made his intentions clear before entering the residence and received the proper permission to enter McCoy's residence.

Staton said Pirtle rights are concerned with suspects volunteering to a search and knowing what that search entails of.

She pointed out that the officer left the residence and obtained a warrant before actually conducting a search for illicit drugs and added that the original search did not relate to McCoy, so there was no reason to read him Pirtle rights before entering the residence.

"I didn't believe I had an avenue to say that this wasn't technically a search for the fact that Officer Scott, at that point in time, was technically conducting a search to find evidence to use against (the robber)," Staton said. "It wasn't a search as related to McCoy. It was the documentation of evidence on this ongoing burglary investigation."

Staton said the officer was treating McCoy like a victim, and reading victims Pirtle rights before there is any reason to suspect them of a crime could stop victims from reporting crimes to the police.

She used an example of a rape victim with an active arrest warrant.

"An officer not only has to take that individual into custody but has another investigation to pursue," Staton said.

"For that victim to come and say, 'It happened in this room and these are the items that are associated with it,' it does seem out of place for an officer to stop that victim and say, 'Before I enter your house to collect that bedding, before I enter the house to collect those leggings, you have the right to consult with an attorney.' It does seem as if there might be situations where that would chill and impede an investigation."

David and Chief Justice Loretta Rush concurred that the case is messy because there are so many different elements to consider.

Now that oral arguments have concluded, the Indiana Supreme Court will convene to make a decision about the case.