State v. Lora

Evidence found during a warrantless search must be obtained in a reasonable manner and as such, evidence found pursuant to an unlawful seizure is inadmissible.

Defendant appealed his conviction imposed by the trial court for one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. Defendant claimed that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful arrest of his person. The State responded by claiming that the evidence was found lawfully through valid consent prior to the Defendant’s arrest. Evidence found during a warrantless search must be obtained in a reasonable manner and as such, evidence found pursuant to an unlawful seizure is inadmissible. The Court determined that the methamphetamine evidence discovered on the defendant was unlawfully seized. The Court reasoned that because the officer could not identify the object during the initial lawful pat down, it was untenable to suggest that the evidence would be admissible when the officer identified the object only after the unlawful arrest. Thus, the Defendant’s consent to the initial pat down did not permit the officers to perform a more expansive pat down after unlawfully arresting the Defendant. Reversed and remanded.