Derichsweiler v. State
348 S.W.3d 906
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Derichsweiler was indicted for felony driving while intoxicated; suppression motion challenged detention as lacking reasonable suspicion.
- Holdens observed the appellant in a Walmart/McDonald's parking lot on New Year’s Eve, staring and grinning at them for extended periods.
- Holdens called 911, described the car and license plate, and reported suspicious behavior and fear of potential crime.
- Officer Carraby, relying on dispatch information and the Holdens’ description, detained the appellant and conducted a DWI investigation after smelling alcohol.
- The trial court found facts supporting reasonable suspicion; the Court of Appeals reversed, applying a narrow view of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to determine whether a totality-of-circumstances approach could justify detention without a specific observed crime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must there be a specific offense to justify reasonable suspicion? | Derichsweiler argues totality suffices without a pinpointed crime. | State contends some offense or objective nexus is required. | No; totality suffices if facts indicate imminent criminal activity. |
| Can citizen-informant information corroborate reasonable suspicion even if not all details reach the detaining officer? | Holdens’ information, via 911, should be considered collectively. | Only information personally known to the detaining officer should count. | Yes; information from cooperating officers/dispatch considered in totality. |
| Is a specific criminal act required to be imminent for reasonable suspicion in a brief stop? | Totality of bizarre and corroborated behavior implies imminent criminal activity. | Unclear, but may require clearer link to an offense. | No; imminent criminal activity can be inferred from totality of circumstances. |
| What is the standard of review for determining reasonable suspicion in suppression rulings? | De novo review of legal question using trial facts; defer to factual findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes articulable facts standard for investigative detentions)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion may arise from collective information)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (cooperating officers and totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Bobo v. State, 843 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (totality of information supported reasonable suspicion; not required to show a specific offense)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (reasonable suspicion can rely on less-than-probable-cause information)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (guides deference to trial court findings in suppression)