Barfield v. State, No. 87A05-0203-CR-144.

Docket NºNo. 87A05-0203-CR-144.
Citation776 N.E.2d 404
Case DateOctober 08, 2002
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

776 N.E.2d 404

Joseph A. BARFIELD, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 87A05-0203-CR-144.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

October 8, 2002.


776 N.E.2d 405
Frank R. Hahn, Newburgh, IN, Attorney for Appellant

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Richard C. Webster, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

DARDEN, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Joseph A. Barfield brings this interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.

We reverse.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

FACTS

Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on March 30, 2001, Sheriff's Deputy Jason Vandiver was on duty in a rural area of Warrick County when he observed Joseph Barfield drive past at a high rate of speed and without a functioning taillight. Vandiver pulled him over, with emergency lights activated on his marked car. When Vandiver exited his car and approached Barfield, he found

776 N.E.2d 406
Barfield "very nervous." (Tr. 6). This prompted Vandiver to start back to his car to call for backup. At that point, Officer Schuble of the Chandler Police Department arrived, having heard Vandiver report the stop. Vandiver "ran [Barfield's] driving information" and learned that Barfield's license was valid. (Tr. 10)

Vandiver considered Barfield to be unusually nervous: he kept looking at Vandiver in his rear view mirror, smoking cigarettes, and tapping his fingers on the door panel. Vandiver went back to Barfield's vehicle, with Schuble at his side. Based on concern for his personal safety, Vandiver asked Barfield's consent to search his car, "to make sure he didn't have any weapons" inside; Barfield agreed. (Tr. 11). Vandiver then asked Barfield "to step out of the vehicle" and "told him" that he would "do ... a pat down search just to make sure he didn't have any weapons on him while we searched the vehicle." (Tr. 12).

Vandiver felt a bulge in Barfield's back jeans pocket and "pulled [it] out to make sure what it was." (Tr. 13). Seeing that the item was a wallet, Vandiver "set [it] on top of the car." Id. Vandiver next felt "a bulge" on one side of Barfield's jacket and "pulled it out and it was a soft pack of cigarettes that was partially full;" he placed "that on top of the car with the wallet." (Tr. 14). When he felt "something like a box" on the other side of the jacket, Vandiver "reached in there and pulled it out and it was a Marlboro 100's box." (Tr. 14-15). Vandiver thought the "weight distribution of the pack" was strange, in that "the weight seemed to be at the bottom of the cigarette pack," and he shook it at which point he heard "something moving around the box." (Tr. 15). Vandiver "then opened the box" and "looked inside." Id. He "saw a clear plastic bag that had a light colored substance in it with a twist tie sealing it." Id.

Barfield was read his Miranda rights. The continued search of Barfield's person revealed no weapons; nor did the search of his car. A field test on the substance in the box tested positive for methamphetamine, and Barfield was arrested. On May 10, 2001, the State charged Barfield with possession of a controlled substance, and possession with intent to distribute.

Barfield filed a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • T.G. v. State (Ex parte T.G.), 1140122.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 17, 2015
    ...in the course of a patdown for weapons was not justified in opening the box for further examination of the contents); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (holding 181 So.3d 325that a police officer's action in removing a Marlboro brand cigarette box from a person stoppe......
  • Peel v. State, No. 54A01-0610-CR-452.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 22, 2007
    ...is to protect the privacy and possessory interests of individuals by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). If a warrantless search is conducted, the burden is on the State to prove that, at the time of the search, an except......
  • Manigault v. State, No. 49A02-0707-CR-565.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 22, 2008
    ...protect the privacy and possessory interests of individuals by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). This protection also governs "`seizures' of the person." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 Gene......
  • Corwin v. State, No. 79A04–1005–CR–296.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 16, 2011
    ...or instantaneously ascertainable. Merely suspecting the nature of an object is insufficient." Id. at 1268. See also Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (removal of cigarette box from defendant's pocket exceeded Terry frisk when testimony did not support finding the offi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • T.G. v. State (Ex parte T.G.), 1140122.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 17, 2015
    ...in the course of a patdown for weapons was not justified in opening the box for further examination of the contents); Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (holding 181 So.3d 325that a police officer's action in removing a Marlboro brand cigarette box from a person stoppe......
  • Peel v. State, 54A01-0610-CR-452.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 22, 2007
    ...is to protect the privacy and possessory interests of individuals by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). If a warrantless search is conducted, the burden is on the State to prove that, at the time of the search, an except......
  • Manigault v. State, 49A02-0707-CR-565.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 22, 2008
    ...protect the privacy and possessory interests of individuals by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 406 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). This protection also governs "`seizures' of the person." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 Gene......
  • Corwin v. State, 79A04–1005–CR–296.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 16, 2011
    ...or instantaneously ascertainable. Merely suspecting the nature of an object is insufficient." Id. at 1268. See also Barfield v. State, 776 N.E.2d 404, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (removal of cigarette box from defendant's pocket exceeded Terry frisk when testimony did not support finding the offi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT