Ariana Oliveira v. State, 03-14-00816-CR

On June 6, 2014 Officer Bryce Sakamoto saw Ariana Oliveira's running vehicle stopped on the dirt shoulder of Old San Antonio Road at ~1:45 a.m., with headlights on; no moving violation or signs of distress were observed.
Officer Sakamoto pulled behind Oliveira, activated his overhead red-and-blue lights within about ten seconds, approached her vehicle, and detained her; he later concluded she was possibly intoxicated and arrested her for DWI.
At the suppression hearing the officer testified both that Oliveira was detained when he activated his lights and (contradictorily on redirect) that she was free to leave before contact.
Oliveira moved to suppress all evidence derived from the stop, arguing the activation of lights constituted a seizure and there was no reasonable suspicion to detain her.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Oliveira pleaded no contest, was convicted and sentenced, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Oliveira)	Held
Whether activation of police overhead red/blue lights behind a parked vehicle at night constitutes a seizure (investigative detention)	The stop was a consensual encounter (no seizure); officer conduct did not compel compliance.	The lights and officer's positioning constituted a show of authority that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore, therefore a seizure occurred.	Trial court ruled the encounter was consensual and denied suppression.
If a seizure occurred, whether there was reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative detention	The State maintained there was sufficient basis to investigate (implicit in trial court ruling).	Oliveira argued there were no articulable facts observed before the detention to support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.	Trial court implicitly accepted the State; appellate brief urges de novo review and reversal.

Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (officer commands can convert an encounter into a detention)
State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (objective "reasonable person" test for seizure)
Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003) (surrounding circumstances factor into seizure analysis)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (police conduct communicates whether a reasonable person is free to decline)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative detention and reasonable suspicion principles)
Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to trial court on factual findings)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (de novo review where legal application does not hinge on credibility/demeanor)
Montanez v. State, 195 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (review deference framework)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellate review principles for suppression rulings)