Brodnex v. State
485 S.W.3d 432
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Around 2:00 a.m., Officer Chesworth observed appellant leave a motel in an area known for narcotics activity and approached him and a female companion.
- The officer asked names and questions, then placed appellant in handcuffs for officer safety (without arrest) citing time, location, being alone, and that other officers had told him appellant was a “known criminal.”
- During a pat-down/search of appellant’s outer clothing, the officer removed an orange plastic cigar tube from appellant’s waistband; it contained crack cocaine.
- Appellant was charged with possession and tampering; the trial court denied his motion to suppress the drugs. A bench trial resulted in conviction for possession and a 20-year sentence after enhancements.
- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of suppression, reasoning the totality of circumstances (time, high-crime location, officer’s belief appellant was a known criminal, and apparent consent) supplied reasonable suspicion and, alternatively, consent permitted the search.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to decide whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and whether the search evidence should have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain appellant | Detention lacked specific articulable facts; time and location alone insufficient (analogous to Garza/Crain) | Time of night, high-narcotics area, and officer’s knowledge appellant was a “known criminal” together justify detention | No reasonable suspicion; detention was unlawful |
| Whether officer’s knowledge that appellant was a “known criminal” supported detention | The officer had no personal, corroborated knowledge tying appellant to particular crime | That information (even secondhand) counts as a factor in totality analysis | Officer’s unsubstantiated, hearsay belief did not supply required articulable facts |
| Whether observed conduct (walking at 2 a.m.) supported detention | Walking at night in high-crime area is not inherently suspicious | Time and area are relevant factors when combined with others | Time and location alone (with minimal additional facts) insufficient |
| Whether the search that uncovered the cigar tube was lawful | Search flowed from unlawful detention and therefore evidence should be suppressed | Video showed apparent consent; alternatively protective frisk justified discovery | Detention illegal; the cocaine should have been suppressed (court reversed on detention ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (upholding detention based on speed violation plus nervousness and known recent drug arrests under totality of circumstances)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (time of day and high-crime area are factors but, alone, are insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Garza v. State, 771 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (hearsay that person is "good for" crimes without linkage to a particular offense does not justify detention)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (frisk permissible when officer reasonably believes suspect may be armed, limited to areas where weapons might be found)