Percifield v. State
| Decision Date | 10 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 53A04-0312-CR-643.,53A04-0312-CR-643. |
| Parties | Morris L. PERCIFIELD, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Samuel S. Shapiro, Bloomington, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
In this interlocutory appeal, Morris Percifield appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Percifield raises two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Percifield's motion to suppress. We affirm.
The relevant facts follow. On January 18, 2002, Percifield was arrested as part of an investigation into dealing cocaine, and City of Bloomington Police Department Detective Rick Crussen interviewed him as follows:
Appellant's Appendix at 38-45. Later that same day, Detective Kevin Hill sought a warrant to search Percifield's residence. The Monroe Circuit Court held a probable cause hearing at which Detective Hill testified that:
Detective Crussen and I have been conducting a cocaine dealing investigation with Morris Percifield and Robert Hardwick as the suspects. Morris Percifield resides at the 811 Winding Way address. On yesterday's date, which would have been the 17th of January, we conducted a controlled buy on approximately a half an ounce of cocaine from this group. And how the deal went down was, the informant did a tape recorded phone call to Morris Percifield's cell phone. He was out of state and he made arrangements to have his what we would call a "runner" drop the drugs off. We made arrangements for the "runner" [to] show up at the informants [sic] house. They didn't meet one another. This person just showed up and put the drugs on the front porch in the barbeque grill. I was standing inside the house and looking out the window when the person arrived. He was identified in that investigation as Robert Hardwick. I have arrested him for dealing cocaine in 1993 and took a conviction on that case. We didn't arrest him that day; we just let him leave. On today's date the informant was to pay the money for that half ounce that she received yesterday to Morris Percifield. And then purchase another half ounce for a total of $1,250 dollars and we called Morris Percifield at his home phone number which is at the address on the search warrant and made arrangements to meet him at the Taco Bell on West Third Street to pay money for yesterday's deal and for the purchase of another half ounce today. That phone call was tape recorded as well. Paul Buckman with D.E.A. was helping us in this investigation and he did surveillance on the house and was watching the house and saw Morris Percifield, or at least an individual matching his description get into the white van that was parked in front of the house and then leave and drive to Taco Bell and meet the informant while we were waiting for him to show up. The informant states that Percifield works for a book company and drives a white van. The white van that was parked in front of the house is registered to some sort of book company, a company vehicle. When he showed up, he did the deal with the informant. She paid him the money. He delivered another half ounce of the substance consistent with cocaine. She left and then turned the cocaine over to me. When he left the parking lot Detective Crussen and Captain Qualters stopped him in his vehicle and took him under arrest and search incident to his arrest and was in possession of our serial number recorded by money. We are currently doing surveillance on the house. Captain Qualters and Paul Buckman with D.E.A. are sitting at the house now. Detective Crussen interviewed Percifield at the jail, or at the Bloomington Police Department. After he mirandized him, Percifield told him there were more drugs in the house. When I debriefed the informant, the informant told me that they basically re-upped or resupplied themselves, which makes sense because he was out of state in Pennsylvania. That is what he told the informant yesterday. And his connection is in Indianapolis and he would have to come right down from Indianapolis while coming home yesterday. Due to the fact we did surveillance on him and left his house and went and did a deal and then admitted that were was more drugs in the house, we request that a search warrant be issued for his residence.
Id. at 32-34 (emphasis added). The trial court issued the search warrant. On the same day, the trial court also approved a prosecutor subpoena duces tecum for the subscriber information and all incoming and outgoing calls for Percifield's cellular phone for January 17, 2002, the day of the first controlled buy.
The State charged Percifield with three counts of dealing in cocaine as class A felonies. Percifield filed a motion to suppress: (1) the evidence seized as a result of the search warrant; and (2) his cellular phone records for January 17, 2002. The trial court issued an order denying Percifield's motion. With respect to the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search warrant, the order provided that:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Robinson v. State
-
Davis v. State
...conclude that I.C. § 33–14–1–3 (now I.C. § 33–39–1–4 ) does not prohibit circuit courts from issuing a subpoena duces tecum.814 N.E.2d 710, 719–20 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). We believe this interpretation is sound, and we decline Davis's invitation to revisit the question.[24] Moreover, our Code wa......