Barrientos v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 64A03–1508–CR–1128.,64A03–1508–CR–1128. |
| Parties | Carlos BARRIENTOS, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
BARTEAU
, Senior Judge.
[1] A police officer stopped Carlos Barrientos while driving and, as a result of their encounter, found a controlled substance in Barrientos' car. In this interlocutory appeal, Barrientos requests reversal of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
[2] Barrientos raises four issues, which we consolidate and restate as:
by asking Barrientos to sit in a police car during a traffic stop and by searching Barrientos' vehicle.
[3] On July 8, 2014, Detective Alfred Villarreal of the Lake County Sheriff's Department was parked along Interstate 90 in Porter County. He was on patrol in an unmarked car. Detective Villarreal was approached by a man who identified himself as an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The agent explained he was investigating a vehicle that might be transporting controlled substances in a hidden compartment. The agent told Detective Villarreal the make, model, and color of the vehicle and further stated it had a yellow temporary license plate issued by the State of Illinois.
[4] Later, as Detective Villarreal was driving on Interstate 90, he saw a vehicle that matched the description the agent had given him. He followed the vehicle and determined it was going eighty miles per hour, well over the speed limit of seventy miles per hour. The detective also saw the vehicle cross the highway's fog line. Detective Villarreal stopped the vehicle.
[5] Barrientos was driving the vehicle, and he was accompanied by his mother and his nephew. Detective Villarreal approached the vehicle on the passenger side. He told Barrientos that he had stopped him for speeding and asked for a driver's license and vehicle registration. Barrientos produced those documents.
[6] Next, Detective Villarreal asked Barrientos to get out of the vehicle and sit in his patrol car. Barrientos was wearing a t-shirt and shorts, and Detective Villarreal asked Barrientos to lift up his t-shirt to show that he did not have a weapon tucked into his shorts before allowing Barrientos to enter the patrol car. Barrientos complied.
[7] After they both sat down in the car, Detective Villarreal checked Barrientos' license on his computer to determine whether the license was valid and whether Barrientos had any arrest warrants. The detective also examined the vehicle registration. Detective Villarreal asked Barrientos where he was going, and Barrientos said he was going to South Bend to attend a child's birthday party. As they talked, Detective Villarreal noted that Barrientos was “fidgety” and his answers seemed to be “hesitant” or “questionable.” Tr. p. 16. However, they also laughed together because the detective had mistakenly believed Barrientos' nephew was an adult due to being tall, and Barrientos explained his nephew was only fifteen years old. Detective Villarreal did not find any irregularities in Barrientos' documents.
[8] Detective Villarreal walked back to Barrientos' vehicle to ask the passengers where they were going. Barrientos' mother said they were “just taking a ride and going to see a family member in general.” Id. at 17.
[9] Next, Detective Villarreal returned to his car, where Barrientos was waiting. The detective sat down, returned Barrientos' driver's license and vehicle registration, and gave him a verbal warning for speeding. Detective Villarreal then told Barrientos he was “all set.” Id. at 19. Barrientos appeared to be relieved and told the officer he would watch his speed. Next, the following exchange occurred, as described by Detective Villarreal:
I asked him if he had anything illegal in the vehicle. I told him that we get a lot of weapons and drugs that come through here, and I asked him if he had anything illegal in his vehicle and he said no. I asked him if he had any weapons in the car; he said no. I asked him if he had any drugs in the car; he said no. And I asked him if he had any large amounts of U.S. currency; and he said no. I then asked him right after that if I could do a—my words were ‘a quick search of his car.’ And he said—I believe he said, ‘Yes, no problem’ or ‘no problem.’ And I reiterated, And he said yes or yeah, one of the two.
[10] After Barrientos consented to the search, Detective Villarreal had Barrientos' mother and nephew go sit in the patrol car with Barrientos. The detective and two other officers who arrived at the scene searched Barrientos' vehicle and found a hidden compartment in the dashboard. The officers opened the compartment and found a package of what appeared to be a controlled substance. Subsequent testing revealed that the officers had found 482.81 grams of heroin.
[11] Meanwhile, Barrientos and his mother talked as they sat in Detective Villarreal's car, and a recorder captured their conversation. Barrientos admitted to his mother that he had a “drug” in the car. State's Ex. 2.
[12] The State charged Barrientos with dealing in a narcotic drug, a Level 2 felony. Ind.Code § 35–48–4–1 (2014)
. Barrientos filed a motion to suppress. The trial court denied Barrientos' motion after an evidentiary hearing. Barrientos asked the trial court to certify its ruling for interlocutory appeal, and the trial court granted the request. Next, Barrientos requested and received permission from this Court to pursue an interlocutory appeal.
[13] We review the denial of a motion to suppress similar to other sufficiency matters. Dora v. State, 957 N.E.2d 1049, 1052 (Ind.Ct.App.2011)
, trans. denied. We do not reweigh the evidence but instead consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Id. We also consider any uncontested evidence in favor of the defendant. Id.
[14] Barrientos concedes Detective Villarreal acted lawfully by stopping him because he had been speeding. Barrientos instead contends that being placed in the detective's car and having his vehicle searched violated his federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. We address the constitutional claims in turn.
[15] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Thayer v. State, 904 N.E.2d 706, 709 (Ind.Ct.App.2009)
.
[16] The protections of the Fourth Amendment extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Id. Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention may be brief. Id. If the detention exceeds the investigative scope of the stop, then seized items may be excluded from evidence. Id.
[17] Barrientos argues that Detective Villarreal exceeded the scope of the stop by asking him to sit in the patrol car. He cites Wilson v. State, 745 N.E.2d 789, 793 (Ind.2001)
, for the proposition than an officer may not place a motorist in a patrol vehicle during a traffic stop unless it is justified by particular circumstances in the case.
[18] Here, Detective Villarreal noted that the road where the stop occurred, Interstate 90, was dangerous because it was congested “on that particular day.” Tr. p. 7. In addition, the section of the highway where the stop occurred had only two lanes. The patrol car was equipped with a dash camera, and its recording supports the detective's assertion of dangerousness, showing heavy traffic passing Barrientos' parked vehicle. Furthermore, Barrientos' vehicle had a temporary license plate issued by the State of Illinois. Detective Villarreal explained he frequently has difficulty obtaining accurate information from his computer about Illinois temporary plates and it is helpful to have the motorist in his car to assist him.
[19] Barrientos notes Detective Villarreal repeatedly testified during the suppression hearing that he always asks motorists to get into his patrol car during traffic stops because doing so allows him to access his car's computer more easily, limits his need to walk back and forth between his car and the motorist's vehicle, makes it easier for him to converse with the motorist, and allows him a better opportunity to spot potential criminal activity.
[20] A routine practice of requiring motorists to enter a patrol car during traffic stops does not appear to comply with our Supreme Court's holding in Wilson. Nevertheless, even where an officer has a general practice of requiring a motorist to get out of his or her car and sit in a patrol car during a traffic stop, there may still be facts in a particular case that justify the officer's request. Under the specific circumstances in this case, Detective Villarreal was justified in asking Barrientos to sit in the patrol car to minimize the need for the detective to walk back and forth along the road during dangerously heavy traffic and to more easily address any issues arising from Barrientos' temporary license plate.
[21] Barrientos cites several cases in support of his claim, but they are distinguishable. Florida v. Royer, 460...
To continue reading
Request your trial