Larry Wayne Richard v. State
01-14-00073-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 9, 2015Background
- Officer Timothy Sandoval stopped Larry Wayne Richard for speeding in an apartment-complex parking lot known for drug activity; three occupants were ordered out of the car.
- As Sandoval approached, he observed Richard make multiple furtive movements toward his leg/foot area.
- Sandoval conducted a general pat-down of the occupants; no weapons were found. A backup officer arrived and Sandoval searched the vehicle.
- While standing behind Richard and using his foot to spread Richard’s legs, Sandoval observed a clear plastic bag protruding from Richard’s shoe.
- Sandoval had Richard remove the shoe, recovered the baggie containing a white powder later identified as 11.947 grams of methylone (a “bath salt”), and arrested Richard.
- The trial court denied Richard’s motion to suppress; the State argues (and the court found) the frisk and the seizure were lawful under Terry and the plain-view doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective frisk | Richard: furtive movements didn’t justify frisk; officer lacked subjective fear and didn’t find weapons in initial pat-down | State: multiple furtive movements toward feet in a drug area objectively justified a frisk for weapons | Court: frisk was reasonable under Terry based on objective facts (furtive movements and drug-area context) |
| Whether frisk exceeded Terry scope (searching ankles/feet, spreading legs, shoe removal) | Richard: officer went beyond a limited frisk and was actually searching for drugs, not weapons | State: officer restricted initial pat-down, waited for backup, inspected ankles because of observed movements; shoe removal occurred only after seeing bag | Court: actions were within scope given specific suspicion of a weapon near feet; viewing and further inspection were lawful |
| Whether plastic bag in shoe could be seized under plain-view doctrine | Richard: item was not observed from a lawful vantage and wasn’t obviously contraband | State: officer was lawfully positioned during a protective frisk and had probable cause (bag location, context, training) | Court: seizure lawful — officer viewed item from valid position and had probable cause to believe it was contraband |
| Whether officer’s subjective intent (searching for drugs) invalidates frisk/seizure | Richard: officer’s statements that he sought narcotics undermine claim of weapon-based frisk | State: subjective motive irrelevant where an objectively reasonable basis for frisk exists | Court: officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant; objective justification controls, so search/seizure remain lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes limited protective frisks based on specific and articulable facts)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (explains plain-view seizure doctrine requirements)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discusses plain-view elements in Texas law)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (upheld probable cause to seize a plastic bag under suspicious circumstances)
- Worthey v. State, 805 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (permitted continued limited search where officer had not been satisfied no weapon remained)