Do Indiana police have to advise you of your right to an attorney before you can consent to a search?: Pirtle v. State

Educational Purposes Only: This post provides general information about Indiana law. It is not legal advice. Laws change and how they apply depends on specific facts. Source links are to iga.in.gov and published Indiana cases so you can read the law yourself.

This post gives a general overview of what Indiana laws say regarding giving consent to search a vehicle. It does not cover a specific case. This article is primarily based on Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975).

The laws on this topic are found in various different court cases linked below.

What do the laws say?

Jones v. State, 655 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 1995) - Opinion available on Justia.

Jones v. State defined what “custody” really is. How do you know when you’re actually in custody? The court rules that there was a test to determine this which is now called the Jones test: Would a reasonable person believe that they are under arrest and not free to leave? The court specifically said that being temporarily unable to leave is not the same thing as being in custody. This distinction was made in reference to being detained. The court also laid emphasis that he was not physically restrained, suggesting that he was not in custody. 655 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 1995).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Opinion available on Justia.

Terry v. Ohio is infamous because it set the standard for stop and frisk, but in this article, we want to explore something else: the definition of being detained. When a law enforcement officer has knowledge of facts that suggest criminal activity is occurring (referred to as reasonable suspicion), they may conduct brief detention of the person as relevant to the reason for stopping them. 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975) - Opinion available on Justia.

When a person is in custody, police must inform them of their right to an attorney before they consent to the search. The person may then waive their right and consent to the search, but the burden of proof for that waiving is on law enforcement. 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975).

What’s the difference between Pirtle v. State 323 N.E.2d 634(Ind. 1975) and Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?

Miranda v. Arizona is specifically about the right to remain silent whereas Pirtle v. State is about the right to an attorney before consenting to a search.

Summary:

Being detained means temporarily being unfree to leave, while being in custody means a reasonable person would believe they are unable to leave, often involving physical restraints. 655 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. 1995). In Indiana, Pirtle v. State requires that an individual in custody is informed of the right to an attorney before they can consent to a search. Proof of waiving that right is on the state. 323 N.E.2d 634(Ind. 1975).