Arguellez v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1324
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant photographed patrons at a municipal pool, including women and young girls in swimsuits.
- A pool manager notified police that a male taking photos at the pool was present and described his vehicle as a tan Ford Taurus.
- An officer saw a matching vehicle leaving the pool area and stopped it behind the pool after contacting the dispatcher.
- The officer obtained verbal consent to view photographs; the camera contained pool-area photos and other photos from an unidentified location.
- Miranda warnings were given; appellant wrote a statement acknowledging taking photos of women and a girl and claiming some photos were taken elsewhere to test the pictures.
- Appellant pled nolo contendere after suppression rulings; the direct-appeal issue challenged whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle? | Arguellez argues no; photographs at a public pool are not themselves suspicious. | State argues totality of circumstances supported a reasonable-suspicion-based stop. | No; the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; reverse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castro v. State, 227 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable-suspicion standard; totality of circumstances)
- Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (objective standard for reasonable suspicion; subjective intent irrelevant)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (specific, articulable facts required; non-guesswork)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (requirement for specific, articulable facts in suspicion analysis)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to trial‑court factual findings; standard of review for suppression rulings)