Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 15, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-03-00539-CR
_______________
REYES LOPEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
______________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 931,786
______________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Reyes Lopez appeals a conviction for marijuana possession[1] on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana recovered by police officers because they had illegally detained him at the time he threw the bag containing it to the ground. We affirm.
A trial court=s ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed for abuse of discretion, giving almost total deference to any findings of historical facts and reviewing the application of search and seizure law de novo. Ballentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Where, as here, the trial court did not make explicit findings of historical facts, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court=s ruling and assume that it made implicit findings of fact that are supported in the record. Id.
When a defendant Aabandons@ property intentionally, and not due to police misconduct, no Fourth Amendment seizure occurs if police take possession of the property, and the defendant lacks standing to contest the reasonableness of their search of the property. Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual in a public place and asking him questions if he is willing to listen, provided that they do not induce his cooperation by coercive means, and a reasonable person would feel free to decline the request. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200-02 (2002).
In this case, evidence in the record that supports the trial court=s ruling includes the testimony of the police officers who followed appellant to his house and then approached him as he was walking toward the residence. One of the officers asked, Acan I talk to you for a minute.@ Although they did not verbally identify themselves as police, both were wearing raid jackets. In approaching appellant, the officers did not: (1) display weapons; (2) instruct him to stop, turn around, or put his hands up; (3) physically restrain him; or (4) otherwise formally exert their authority. After turning around, appellant tossed the white bag he was carrying behind him into the yard, and nervously asked, Awhat did I do@ and Awhat do you need with me.@ After discovering a brick of marijuana in the bag, the officers arrested appellant.
Although appellant=s testimony conflicted with that of the officers, there is evidence in the record supporting the trial court=s implied rulings that the police officers had taken no coercive action at the time appellant threw the bag to the ground, and, accordingly, that he had abandoned the property for Fourth Amendment purposes. Therefore, appellant=s sole point of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 15, 2004.
Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Smith.[2]
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Appellant pled guilty to the offense, and the trial court sentenced him to two years confinement, suspended the sentence, placed him on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $300.
[2] Senior Justice Jackson B. Smith sitting by assignment.