Opinion issued June 25, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00729-CR
———————————
LATOYA Y. TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 6
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1920181
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After the trial court denied her motion to suppress evidence, appellant,
LaToya Y. Taylor, pleaded guilty to possession of less than two ounces of
marihuana. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121 (a), (b) (1) (West
2010). The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at three
days in jail, a $100 fine, and one years’ suspension of appellant’s driver’s license.
In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by denying her motion to
suppress evidence. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
Shortly before 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2013, Houston Police Officer A.
Huckabee and his partner were on patrol when they ran appellant’s license plates
on their computer system while passing her car. The computer system showed that
appellant’s plates were expired. The officers then initiated a traffic stop based on
the expired license plates. As Officer Huckabee got out of his patrol car and
approached appellant’s car, he noticed that the license plate number on the
registration sticker did not match the numbers on the physical license plates. When
asked about appellant’s demeanor, Huckabee testified as follows:
I noticed she seemed kind of unusually nervous. She was rubbing her
hand on—rubbing her palms on the top of her pants like she was
nervous. She was kind of shifting in her seat a little bit; didn’t really
want to look me in the eye; giving me short, single answers—single-
word answers.
“[B]ased on [appellant’s] nervous demeanor and the fact that [Huckabee]
though she might have a fictitious registration,” Huckabee testified that he asked
appellant to step out of her car so that he could put her in the back of the police car
and then safely conduct the registration investigation without appellant running or
2
driving away. Officer Huckabee also testified that he handcuffed appellant before
he put her in the back of the patrol car for safety reasons.
It’s another officer-safety issue. There’s been instances in the past
where suspects have shot officers in the back of the head while they
were in the police car because they weren’t handcuffed or properly
searched.
At this point, appellant was not under arrest and she was not read her statutory
rights; she was detained while the officer investigated the possible fictitious car
registration. Officer Huckabee then asked appellant whether she had any weapons
or contraband in her car, and appellant answered negatively.
Officer Huckabee testified that he conducted a pat-down search “for safety
reasons” before he put appellant in the back of the patrol car to make sure that she
did not have a weapon in her pocket.
[Prosecutor]: As part of detaining the defendant did you conduct a
pat-down search?
[Huckabee]: we did, before we placed her in the back of the patrol
car, for officer-safety reasons.
****
[Huckabee]: It was for officer-safety reasons before, you know, we
put her in the back of the police car for the purpose of our registration
investigation because people have concealed little Derringers in their
pockets.
During the pat-down search, Officer Huckabee stated that he felt a bag of
loose substance in her pockets, and, when he asked the appellant what it was, she
3
told him that it was marihuana. Officer Huckabee then pulled the bag out of
appellant’s pocket and, based on his training and experience, concluded that the
substance was in fact marihuana. Officer Huckabee then arrested appellant for
possession of marihuana.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
In her sole issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying her
motion to suppress the marihuana seized from her because, under the United States
Constitution, the frisk that led to the discovery of the marihuana was not justified.
See U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S. Ct. 1868,
1877 (1968).
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress under a bifurcated
standard of review. Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. Crim. App.
2013). “We review the trial court’s factual findings for an abuse of discretion, but
review the trial court’s application of law to the facts de novo.” Id. We give almost
total deference to a trial court’s determination of historical facts, especially if those
determinations turn on witness credibility or demeanor, and we review de novo the
trial court’s application of the law to facts not based on an evaluation of credibility
and demeanor. Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012);
Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). At a suppression
4
hearing, the trial court is the sole and exclusive trier of fact and judge of the
witnesses’ credibility and may choose to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the
witnesses’ testimony. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002); State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). When, as here,
the trial court makes findings of fact, we determine whether the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports those
findings. State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We review
the trial court’s legal ruling de novo unless its explicit findings that are supported
by the record are also dispositive of the legal ruling. Id. We will sustain the trial
court’s ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any
theory of law applicable to the case. Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 855–56.
Applicable Principles of Law
“A ‘stop’ and ‘frisk’ by law enforcement personnel amounts to a sufficient
intrusion on an individual's privacy to implicate the Fourth Amendment's
protections.” Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)
(citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 16, 88 S. Ct. at 1877). Under an exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement, however, an officer may generally be justified
in briefly detaining an individual on less than probable cause for the purpose of
investigating “possibly-criminal behavior.” Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.
Ct. at 1880; Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (“Texas
5
courts require reasonable suspicion before a seizure of the person or property can
occur.”)).
To determine the reasonableness of an investigative detention, we consider
whether the officer’s action was (1) justified at its inception and (2) reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference. Terry, 392 U.S.
at 19–20, 88 S. Ct. at 1879; Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242. Under the first prong, an
officer is generally justified in briefly detaining an individual on less than probable
cause for the purpose of investigating “possibly-criminal behavior” where the
officer has “specific, articulable facts that, taken together with rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.
Ct. at 1880; Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 328. Under the second prong, an
investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to
effectuate the purpose of the stop. Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245.
A law enforcement officer who has lawfully detained a person for
investigation may conduct a protective search of the detainee’s outer clothing for
weapons, even in the absence of probable cause, if the officer reasonably believes
that the suspect is armed and dangerous. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at
1883. However, “[t]he purpose of a limited search after [an] investigatory stop is
not to discover evidence of a crime, but to allow the peace officer to pursue
investigation without fear of violence.” Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 329 (quoting
6
Wood v. State, 515 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)). A pat-down search
is not justified on the basis that a law enforcement officer has a “reasonable
suspicion to believe that a detainee is involved in criminal activity.” Id.
(distinguishing legal standard justifying initial detention from legal authority to
conduct “frisk”). “The ‘exigencies’ that permit the additional search are generated
strictly by a concern for the safely of the officers.” Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at
25–26, 88 S. Ct. at 1882). And the “additional intrusion that accompanies a Terry
frisk is only justified where the officer can point to specific and articulable facts
which reasonably lead him to conclude that the suspect might possess a weapon.”
Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 25–27, 88 S. Ct. at 1882–83; Worthey v. State, 805
S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
Analysis
Here, appellant does not contest the lawfulness of the investigatory
detention. Instead, she “is only seeking review on the legality of the pat and frisk.”
Specifically, appellant argues that the State presented no evidence that would have
afforded Officer Huckabee an objective reasonable basis for suspecting that
appellant was “presently armed and dangerous.” In response, the State points to
(1) the fact that appellant’s license place was expired and did not match the
number on her registration sticker, and (2) appellant’s nervous behavior while in
the car, including a failure to maintain eye contact, short, one-word answers,
7
shifting in her seat, and “rubbing her palms on the top of her pants like she was
nervous.”
In Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 326–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), a
police informant told the officer that appellant would be driving from Houston to
Nacogdoches while carrying 10 ounces of cocaine, so the police set up surveillance
at a gas station along the route. After appellant left the gas station, officers
followed him and pulled him over after observing a traffic violation. Id. There
were several officers at the scene. Id. The officers searched the car with consent,
and when tipped off by the informant to check appellant’s person, the officer
performed a pat-down search on appellant and found more than $1,900 in cash. Id.
The court of criminal appeals noted that reasonable suspicion of illegal activity
was not sufficient to justify a “Terry frisk,” but that “[t]he additional intrusion that
accompanies a Terry frisk is only justified where the officer can point to specific
and articulable facts which reasonably lead him to conclude that the suspect might
possess a weapon.” Id. at 329. The court noted that such circumstances were, in
fact, present because of the “nature of the suspected criminal activity,” i.e., drug
trafficking. Id. at 330.
The court of criminal appeals also found sufficient circumstances to warrant
a Terry frisk in State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In
that case, the police spotted Castleberry and another man walking behind a closed
8
business at 3 a.m. Id. at 462. The area had one of the “higher crime rates” and had
been subject to several recent burglaries. Id. The officer and his partner approached
the men, asked them what they were doing, and asked for their identification. Id.
Castleberry reached for his waistband, and the officer became concerned that he
might have a weapon. Id. at 463. The officer told Castleberry to put his hands up,
and Castleberry again reached for his waistband. Id. The officer told appellant to
put his hands behind his back so that the officer could frisk him, and for a third
time appellant reached for his waistband. Id. This time Castleberry pulled out a
baggie of cocaine and threw it, and the officer arrested him. Id. The court of
criminal appeals concluded that the officer has the right to frisk Castleberry
because he was behind a closed business in a high crime area, and when asked for
his identification, reached for his waistband, “an act that could be reasonably
construed as reaching for a weapon.” Id. at 469.
However, in Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), the
court of criminal appeals found that the circumstances presented did not warrant a
Terry frisk. In that case, appellant was sitting in his truck at a public boat ramp
during his lunch hour, when he was approached by two game wardens. Id. at 665.
The wardens thought the truck looked “out of place” and “suspicious.” Id. When
the warden asked Wade what he was doing, and Wade replied that he was eating
lunch, the warden did not believe him because he did not see any trash from a
9
lunch. Id. The warden did not believe several answers by Wade about where he
lived and what he was doing at the boat ramp; he also noticed that Wade appeared
“overly nervous.” Id. Thereafter, the warden twice asked Wade if he had any
weapons or contraband, and both times Wade responded, “Why are you doing this
to me?” The warden then frisked Wade and asked him again if there was anything
he should know about. Id. at 665–66. Wade said there was a pipe in the truck. Id.
The warden searched the truck and found a small amount of methamphetamine.
Id. The court of criminal appeals concluded that what began as a consensual
encounter became a detention when the warden ordered Wade out of the truck. Id.
The court further concluded that the warden had neither reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity, nor an objectively reasonable concern for his safety.
Specifically, the court noted that the State had provided three factors to support the
warden’s conduct: (1) Wade’s undue nervousness, (2) “changing statements” by
Wade, and (3) Wade’s “strange response” when he repeatedly asked “Why are you
doing this to me?” Id. at 670–72. The court began by noting that nervous or
evasive behavior could be a relevant factor in determining reasonable suspicion for
a Terry frisk, but noted that “it is not particularly probative.” Id. at 671. The court
likewise found the other bases argued by the State unpersuasive, concluding that
“[n]either nervousness nor a refusal to cooperate with an officer during a
consensual encounter are sufficient by themselves to constitute reasonable
10
suspicision[,]” “[n]or were they sufficient in combination with appellant’s
statements about his reasons for coming to the boat launch to provide the basis for
the detention and frisk.” Id. at 676. Because appellant’s statement regarding the
pipe was tainted by the warden’s illegal detention, it could not provide the basis for
searching Wade’s truck. Id.
In State v. Moore, 25 S.W.3d 383, 384 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.),
the police went to a convenience store in response to a reported forgery. There,
police noticed appellant, “who appeared to be nervous” standing near a machine
used to present and cash checks. Id. at 385. After appellant denied using the
machine, the officer noticed that “Moore was nervous; his hands were shaking and
he was perspiring[,]” so the officer frisked him for weapons, finding none. Id. The
officer then handcuffed Moore “for safety” and requested permission to search his
backpack, in which he found a receipt for the check cashing machine for 30
minutes earlier. Id. Moore then confessed to trying to cash a check he claimed to
have found on the street. Id. The court concluded that the Terry frisk and
subsequent events were not justified, stating:
But we must also consider whether handcuffing Moore was
reasonably necessary to preserve the status quo or to promote officer
safety during the investigation. Forgery is not a crime that is
commonly associated with violence. The encounter between Moore
and the officer took place in a brightly lit store, not in a dark street or
vacant lot. Moore cooperated fully with the officers and consented to
the search of his person. The officers found a handgun permit during
this search, but they did not find a weapon. The officer outnumbered
11
Moore two to one, and one office could easily have watched Moore
while the other searched his backpack. While we are reluctant to
second-guess police officers regarding such matters, there is simply
no evidence that the officer had a reason to fear for their safety or any
other justification for handcuffing Moore while pursuing their
investigation. We agree with the trial court that, on this record, the
handcuffing transformed the detention into an arrest for which there
was no probable cause.
Id. at 387.
From these cases, we conclude that it is appropriate for us to consider,
among other things, the nature of the crime being investigated, the place, time, and
circumstances of the detention, and the reaction of the suspect in determining
whether there were specific and articulable facts which could reasonably lead an
officer to conclude that a suspect might possess a weapon.
Here, the Terry stop occurred roadside at 5 p.m. There is no evidence that
this was a high-crime area. There were two officers present; appellant was alone.
Unlike Carmouche, the officers were not investigating a narcotics crime or any
other offense likely to involve violence. Instead, Officer Huckabee testified that he
was investigating appellant for a possible “fictitious registration.”1 Attaching a
fictitious registration to a vehicle is a Class B misdemeanor. See TEX. TRANSP.
CODE ANN. § 502.475(a)(4) (Vernon 2014). Unlike Castleberry, appellant did not
repeatedly ignore officer requests to move her hands from a location that might
1
There is no evidence in the record that Huckabee thought the car might have been
stolen.
12
conceal a weapon. In contrast, Officer Huckabee testified that, while sitting in the
car, appellant was “rubbing her palms on the top of her pants like she was
nervous.” (emphasis added). Nothing suggested that this “rubbing” could have
reasonably been perceived as an attempt to reach a weapon, that the officer asked
appellant to stop, or that appellant disobeyed and continued the “rubbing” after
being removed from the car.
Indeed, Huckabee justified his “pat down” on only two factors: (1)
appellant’s “nervous demeanor,” and (2) “officer safety.” Like Wade, these two
factors, without any additional circumstances from which that the officer could
have formed a reasonable belief that appellant was armed, are insufficient to justify
the Terry frisk. See Wade, 422 S.W.3d at 670. Nervousness “is not particularly
probative because ‘most citizens with nothing to hide will nonetheless manifest an
understandable nervousness in the presence of the officer.’” Id. at 671 (quoting
Glass v. State, 681 S.W.2d 599, 602 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). And, while we
understand an officer’s necessary caution when approaching roadside encounters 2,
not every roadside encounter in which an officer removes a suspect from a car
justifies a Terry frisk as a matter of “officer safety.” A Terry frisk is unjustified
when conducted solely as a matter of routine. O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548,
2
See Michgan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 3481 (1983) (noting
that “roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous”).
13
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Rebeles v. State, No. 13-12-00408-CR, 2014
WL 1370039, *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 3, 2014, no pet.) (not
designated for publication) (“The characterization of the frisk as a simple
precaution constitutes justification based on routine rather than a justified belief
that appellant was armed or dangerous.”).
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling, we conclude that the record contains no “specific and articulable facts
which reasonably lead [the officer] to conclude that the suspect might possess a
weapon.” Wood, 515 S.W.2d at 306 (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 25–27, 88 S. Ct. at
1882–83). As such, the frisk was not justified under Terry, and the trial court erred
in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
Nevertheless, the State argues that the search is also valid as a search
incident to arrest because Officer Huckabee had probable cause to arrest appellant
after she acknowledged that she had marihuana in her pocket. Appellant’s
statement about the marihuana was derived from Huckabee’s illegal Terry frisk
and was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” therefore, it could not provide probable cause
for her arrest. See Wade, 422 S.W.3d at 676 (holding statement made after illegal
detention and frisk did not provide probable cause for subsequent search).
We sustain appellant’s sole point of error.
14
CONCLUSION
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further
proceedings.
Sherry Radack
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
15