COA upholds admitting meth found in Bedford Taco Bell

A man convicted for possessing several grams of meth has lost his appeal to suppress evidence found at his fast food workplace after an anonymous caller alerted authorities.

While working at his Taco Bell job in Bedford, Kristapher Canfield was asked by two police officers to step outside to speak with them, and he agreed. The officers, who were alerted that Canfield might have an illegal substance on his person, watched as the man appeared to drop something in the food preparation area before returning to them with his manager’s consent.

Once outside, Canfield began to fidget nervously upon hearing the area where he had been seen stooping down would be searched. While one officer stayed outside with him, the other returned inside and discovered a bag containing several smaller bags with white crystal powdery substance.

The bags contained 4.23 grams of methamphetamine and Canfield was charged with Level 4 felony possession of meth. He filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the police illegally detained him, searched the area he was ordered to leave and seized the evidence from the search. His motion was denied, as was his motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.

Canfield was convicted of Level 5 felony possession of meth after a motion was granted to modify his charge considering his prior conviction for Class B felony dealing in meth. He appealed, arguing that the seizure, his detention and the search of the restaurant violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Canfield’s conviction in Kristapher D. Canfield v. State of Indiana,18A-CR-3124, disagreeing with his first assertion.

“We conclude that Canfield agreed to step outside in a consensual encounter and we cannot say that his rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated or that the trial court abused its discretion,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel.

Neither did the trial court abuse its discretion, the panel determined, in admitting evidence under the totality of the circumstances. It thus found the search to be reasonable and not in violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The appellate court further affirmed the evidence was sufficient to sustain Canfield’s conviction.

“We conclude that the State presented evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that Canfield committed the offense of possession of methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony,” the panel concluded.

Judge Paul Mathias, concurring in a separate opinion, wrote simply to “state the obvious.”

“While Canfield’s agreement to meet the uniformed officer outside his place of employment amounts to a consensual encounter under the law, the fact of the matter is that few Hoosiers are aware of their right to refuse to speak with a uniformed law enforcement officer under circumstances like Canfield faced in this case, other than to provide identification,” Baker wrote.

“This is similar to the law regarding the circumstances faced by Hoosiers in a roadside traffic stop.”