State v. Durrence

The defendant's intoxication and other factors supported the trial court's finding that he did not voluntarily consent to a search of his residence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The state appeals the trial court’s grant of John Durrence’s motion to suppress evidence discovered inside his residence during what the state contends was a valid search pursuant to consent. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to upholding the findings of fact and judgment of the trial court.1 We must accept the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility unless those findings are clearly erroneous, and the trial court’s findings will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them.2 Viewed in this light, the record shows that a deputy with the Effingham County Sheriff’s Department responded to a disorderly conduct complaint at Durrence’s residence. When the deputy arrived, Durrence was outside the house. According to the deputy, he was initially unable to ascertain who had made the disorderly complaint upon arrival due to Durrence’s intoxication, but Durrence eventually indicated that the offender had left the premises. The deputy secured the scene and made sure no one entered or exited the residence.

Another deputy arrived fifteen minutes later and heard an occupant inside the residence screaming that Durrence had marijuana in the house and was growing marijuana. Without the permission of Durrence, this deputy entered the house to speak with the occupant inside. The deputy then left the house to question Durrence about the allegations and obtained Durrence’s verbal and written consent to search the residence. The deputy did not read the written consent form to Durrence and did not advise Durrence that he had the right to refuse to give consent or that he could withdraw his consent. In addition, the deputy testified that during this time, Durrence was not free to leave the premises.

State v. Durrence

The defendant's intoxication and other factors supported the trial court's finding that he did not voluntarily consent to a search of his residence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report