Mayfield v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-579A120,3-579A120 |
| Citation | 402 N.E.2d 1301 |
| Parties | Phillip R. MAYFIELD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Terry E. Johnston, Valparaiso, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Phillip R. Mayfield was charged and convicted of the crime of Theft. 1 He was a juvenile at the time the crime was committed. His trial was conducted in the Porter Superior Court after a petition for waiver from the Porter Juvenile Court had been granted. 2 Mayfield was sentenced to the Indiana Youth Center for a period of not less than one nor more than ten years. The court further recommended that Mayfield be held at the Indiana Youth Center for a period of not less than two years.
On appeal, Mayfield raises five issues for our consideration:
(1) Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of the trial court?
(2) Was the stopping of the car in which he was riding reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time of the stop?
(3) Did the failure of the police officer to provide him with an opportunity to confer with a parent prior to questioning render his incriminating statements inadmissible?
(4) Did this same failure render the identification testimony inadmissible?
(5) Was the trial court authorized to recommend that he spend two years at the Indiana Youth Center?
We affirm.
In considering sufficiency of the evidence, we may consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all the logical and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Jenkins v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 543, 372 N.E.2d 166. This Court will neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses. Jenkins, supra. When there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting the judgment of the trial court, it will not be set aside. Jones v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 1349.
About 1:05 a. m., Mrs. Kandyce Napier was awakened by the sound of a loud car muffler. When she went to the window of her trailer, she saw three young men getting into an old, "greenish" station wagon with rust spots and a white bumper sticker on its bumper. They drove off in the car, but they did not leave the trailer park. Later, when Mrs. Napier had returned to bed, she heard a thump outside her trailer. She got out of bed and peered out the window again. She saw the same three young men gathered around her husband's motorcycle. One was seated on the cycle while the other two "were pushing the bike." The two pushed the motorcycle until it started and then, ran off to the south through a trailer park yard. Almost immediately, Mrs. Napier heard the sound of a loud car muffler. She telephoned the police to report the theft.
Several officers heard and responded to the police dispatch that a blue motorcycle had been stolen from the trailer park. One of the suspects was described as a male, having long brown hair and wearing a white shirt. The information in the dispatch also pointed to the involvement of a greenish-blue station wagon.
Within three minutes of hearing this report, Officer Green observed a blue motorcycle speeding on a highway near the trailer park. As he pulled off the highway to make a U-turn and give chase, he saw a blue station wagon. It was following about one-half mile behind the motorcycle. Officer Green caught up with the station wagon and stopped it. Mayfield, who had long brown hair and who was wearing a white shirt, was riding as passenger in the station wagon. He and his companion were asked to identify themselves and give an explanation as to their activities earlier in the evening. A search of the glove box failed to produce a registration to indicate the ownership of the station wagon. However, the police did find a utility bill and from the address on the utility bill they were able to locate the stolen motorcycle.
Mrs. Napier was brought to the scene of the traffic stop within 30 minutes after the commission of the crime. She was able to positively identify the station wagon and both its occupants as being involved in the theft of the motorcycle.
We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.
On appeal, Mayfield argues that Officer Green had no probable cause to stop the station wagon in which he was a passenger. Citing Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, and Luckett v State (1972), 259 Ind. 174, 284 N.E.2d 738, Mayfield correctly sets forth the following standard for the making of an investigatory stop:
"(W)ould the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate?"
392 U.S. at 21, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1880.
While we agree with his statement of the law, we are unable to accept his argument. Mayfield's contention that Officer Green failed to have even the "bare minimum of facts" to warrant an investigatory stop is merely an assertion, unsupported by the evidence. See Patterson v. State (1979), Ind., 386 N.E.2d 936, 939. In order to justify the stopping of a vehicle for further investigation, the information known to the police at the time of the stop must be examined. If the information would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that further investigation was appropriate, then the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. 3 Lawrence v. State (1978), Ind., 375 N.E.2d 208; Mack v. State (1978), Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 592.
Mayfield suggests that "No longer may police officers lawfully detain vehicles and their occupants upon mere suspicion or for the mere purposes of investigating criminal activity unless probable cause for arrest exists." He relies upon Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, wherein the Court stated at 1401:
"Accordingly, we hold that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. . . . " (Emphasis supplied.)
The station wagon in which Mayfield was a passenger was stopped by Officer Green in response to a police radio dispatch. The information known to Officer Green at the time of the stop indicated that a blue motorcycle had been stolen from the trailer park by three individuals. One of them was reported to have long brown hair and to be wearing a white shirt. Officer Green was also notified by radio that a greenish-blue station wagon was possibly involved.
Within three minutes of receiving this dispatch and approximately two miles from the trailer park, Officer Green saw a speeding blue motorcycle. One-half mile behind it was a greenish-blue station wagon. When Officer Green pulled behind the station wagon, he observed that the passenger had long brown hair and was wearing a white shirt. We conclude that the combined observations of a speeding blue motorcycle, a greenish-blue station wagon, and a long-haired passenger in the station wagon in the vicinity of the trailer park shortly after the commission of the crime, clearly provided Officer Green with an "articulable and reasonable suspicion" to make the investigatory stop.
Mayfield also claims that no evidence was offered to determine the reliability of the source of the police department's information. He contends that if Officer Green had probable cause to stop the station wagon, it was based upon unverified information provided by a third party and was, therefore, unreliable. Citing Carson v. State (1975), 164 Ind.App. 24, 326 N.E.2d 624, he argues that probable cause can only be established by showing the previously determined reliability of the third party or by verification of extrinsic facts which import reliability to the information.
In making his argument, Mayfield has confused probable cause required to make an arrest with facts sufficient to warrant an investigatory stop. A police officer does not need to have probable cause to arrest in order to make an investigatory stop. Zelmer v. State (1978), Ind.App., 380 N.E.2d 618; Bennett v. State (1977), Ind.App., 369 N.E.2d 949. The police officer has no duty to determine the reliability of the information upon which he is relying to make an investigatory stop. He need only have sufficient information to warrant a reasonable belief that further investigation is appropriate. Lawrence, supra. Here, it is enough that the victim of the crime immediately notified the police department with detailed descriptions of the stolen motorcycle, the station wagon, and the three young men who committed the crime. 4 This information was sufficient to provide Officer Green with an "articulable and reasonable suspicion" to make the stop.
Mayfield next finds fault with the police investigatory procedure. After the station wagon was stopped, Mayfield and his companion were separated and individually asked their identity and about their recent activities. Prior to any questioning, both were advised of their Miranda rights and both stated that they had understood these rights. 5 When it was pointed out to Mayfield that his explanation did not coincide with that of his companion, Mayfield told Officer Green that:
"(H)e did not think he could tell me, as he was already on probation in our county and he was afraid to go back to Boys School."
Mayfield also told another police officer that:
"(H)e had been in trouble before and there was really no valid reason for him wanting to talk to us now because it would just get him in deeper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; Taylor v. State, (1980) 273 Ind. 558, 406 N.E.2d 247, 250; Mayfield v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 402 N.E.2d 1301, 1306. Rather, a "reasonable suspicion" further investigation is necessary will suffice. Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 22-23, 88 S.......
-
L.W v. State Of Ind.
...was. “In Indiana, the knowledge of the entire police force may be imputed to an arresting or searching officer.” Mayfield v. State, 402 N.E.2d 1301, 1306 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) citing State v. Mooney, 398 N.E.2d 698, 700 (Ind.Ct.App.1979)). Unlike the majority, I am not inclined to disregar......
-
Bryant v. State
...harmless error. Where there is sufficient “untainted” evidence to support the conviction, we will find harmless error. Mayfield v. State, 402 N.E.2d 1301 (Ind.Ct.App.1980). Here, the State presented evidence that Bryant had driven Carol's car around for several days with Carol's body wrappe......
-
Groff v. State
...activity, notwithstanding the absence of probable cause. Edwards v. State (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 666, 668; Mayfield v. State (1980), Ind.App., 402 N.E.2d 1301, 1306. To justify an investigatory vehicle stop, the officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, w......