Johnson v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1810
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant’s suppression motion challenged the warrantless seizure and search as lacking reasonable suspicion, arguing no detention or probable cause, no exigent circumstances, and violation of state and federal law; trial court denied suppression, finding a minimal detention justified by articulable facts; appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and was sentenced to 20 days, then appealed; court of appeals affirmed, upholding denial of suppression; Supreme Court granted review and held detention was at issue and remanded to determine validity of detention.
- The underlying 911 call described a suspicious Black male at Copper Cove Apartments, apartment 309; responding officer backed into a parking space, used a bright spotlight, spoke in a loud voice, and asked for ID while appellant sat in a legally parked car; officer smelled marijuana only after asking appellant to exit and looking inside the car; there was no arrest warrant or clear evidence of criminal activity at the outset.
- A retired officer testified supporting the complainant’s depiction of suspicious activity; defense presented counterwitness testimony; the trial court ultimately concluded the officer acted reasonably and that a minimal detention occurred, denying the suppression motion.
- The appellate court held the detention issue was controlled by de novo review; it found the totality of circumstances supported a detention; the Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate standard applied and concluded detention should be reviewed de novo as a question of law.
- The opinion ultimately reverses the court of appeals, holding the appellant was detained, and remands for consideration of whether the detention was valid and supported by reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial interaction was a detention or a consensual encounter | Johnson argued the trial court found a detention; the court of appeals erred in treating it as consensual. | State argued detention questions are legal, not factual, and the appellate court properly applied review. | Detention; de novo review required; initial interaction was a detention. |
| Appropriate standard of review for detention vs. encounter | Johnson urged de novo review for the detention question. | State urged deference to trial court’s factual findings and appropriate mixed-question review. | Detention question is a matter of law to be reviewed de novo; mixed-question framework applies. |
| Did the totality of circumstances establish a minimal detention justified by reasonable suspicion | Facts viewed in favor of denial of suppression supported detention. | Facts could support only a consensual encounter; detention not justified. | Under totality of circumstances, a detention existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (detentions may be justified by reasonable suspicion when warrantless)
- State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (distinguishes encounter vs. detention and standard of review)
- Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (detention vs. encounter is a legal question reviewed de novo)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (detention analysis via show of authority and ability to leave)
- State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (historic-fact vs. credibility in mixed questions)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (standard for reviewing mixed questions of fact and law)
- Johnson v. State, 359 S.W.3d 725 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (pertinent appellate findings on detention standard)
- Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (guidance on appellate review of suppression rulings)