Darden, Senior J.
David Wright appeals his convictions of four counts of child molestation committed by a person at least twenty-one years of age, all Level 1 felonies. …
….
Wright lived with a married couple, T.S. and E.S., and their five children, in Hartford City, Indiana. … T.S. and E.S., and their children, lived on the main floor of the house, with Wright living in the basement…
On Friday, January 22, 2016, Special Agent Jeffrey Robertson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived at the house with several other armed federal and state law enforcement officers. He had a federally-issued warrant from Washington, D.C., to search for child pornography on computers …
When Robertson and other agents entered T.S. and E.S.’s apartment, he gathered everyone together, including Wright, explained that he was there to investigate an allegation of child pornography, and stated that he wanted to scan their electronic devices for child pornography.
Robertson failed to advise the residents of the apartment that they did not have to give their consent. Further, he had written consent forms in his vehicle but, for reasons unknown, he did not use them. … Wright and the others turned over their computers.
….
Approximately three days later, on Monday, January 25, 2016, Robertson went back to the apartment. He returned all computers in the presence of everyone, with the exception of Wright’s two computers. When Wright inquired about his computers, Robertson stated he would like to discuss the matter with him and asked him if he wanted to talk there or in a different location. …
As they were walking to the vehicle, Robertson informed Wright he was neither in custody nor under arrest. Robertson further stated to Wright that he was not obligated to talk with him and was free to leave at any time. Upon getting into the vehicle, Robertson sat in the driver’s seat, Wright sat in the front passenger seat, and another officer sat in the back seat. … Wright stated he understood; however, Roberson did not Mirandize Wright.
During their discussion, Robertson stated that he had discovered that one of Wright’s computers had been used to access child pornography websites through a router that facilitated anonymous transactions. … Robertson then asked Wright if he had any
information about contact with any of the children. At that point, Wright stated he had had some kind of contact with two of T.S. and E.S.’s children. Robertson immediately stopped the conversation and contacted the Hartford City Police Department. He ultimately spoke with Lieutenant Detective Cody Crouse. Robertson took Wright into custody at Crouse’s request, handcuffed him, and transported him to the police station. …
Crouse met them at the police station. Robertson put Wright in an interview room and removed his handcuffs. …Prior to the start of the interview, Crouse Mirandized Wright using an advice of rights form, which Wright signed.
During the interview, which was recorded, Wright told Crouse and Robertson that within the past year, he had performed numerous sexual acts with W.S., who was now ten years old; and, some sexual acts with F.S., who was now four years old, within the past six months. …
….
… Wright filed a motion to suppress his statements, asking the court to deem inadmissible all evidence obtained from the January 22, 2016 search of the apartment, including the contents of his computers. Wright further argued his January 25, 2016 statements to Robertson and Crouse, and any evidence obtained as a result of those statements, should also be suppressed because they were derived from the illegal search and seizure that had taken place on January 22, 2016. …
… The trial court determined that the search of Wright’s computers violated both his federal and state constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable search and seizure. … The trial court further determined, however, that on January 25, 2016, Wright’s statements to the police were obtained independently of the search of the computers and, therefore, were admissible into evidence.
….
In Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the exclusionary rule bars evidence directly obtained by an illegal search or seizure as well as evidence derivatively gained as a result of information learned or leads obtained during that same search or seizure. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 266 (Ind. 2013). The derivative evidence is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Id. Indiana courts have applied the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to search and seizure claims under Article I, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. See Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
….
Indiana’s constitutional jurisprudence diverges from federal jurisprudence as to exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. No Indiana appellate court has determined that the attenuation doctrine and/or exception applies to claims presented under Article 1, section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Indeed, the Court has held to the contrary.
See Trotter v. State, 933 N.E.2d 572, 582-83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (attenuation doctrine inapplicable under Indiana Constitution) …
In the current case, there is no dispute that Wright’s incriminating statements to the officers on January 25, 2016, about touching the children directly resulted from or derived from the unconstitutional search and seizure of Wright’s computers. The statements were thus the fruit of the poisonous tree. Having determined pursuant to the holding in Trotter that the attenuation doctrine does not apply to search and seizure claims under the Indiana Constitution, we must reject the State’s argument that Wright’s statements made during police questioning in Robertson’s vehicle and at the police station were admissible.
We conclude the trial court erred in admitting Wright’s incriminating statements into evidence. …
Reversed and Remanded.
Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.