Lerma v. State
543 S.W.3d 184
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2018Background
- At 10:55 p.m. Officer Salinas stopped a car for two minor traffic violations; four occupants were in the vehicle, including Appellant Ernesto Lerma as front-seat passenger and a woman with an unrestrained baby.
- During initial contact Salinas observed Lerma make furtive movements (reaching toward pockets and between seats), appear nervous, and lack physical ID; Salinas—alone—asked Lerma to exit and performed a pat-down at about three minutes into the stop.
- Lerma said his name was "Bobby Diaz" and admitted to having a pocketknife; Salinas retrieved the knife during the frisk and felt other soft items consistent with cigars/contraband but did not immediately remove them.
- Backup arrived four minutes after the stop; Salinas ran the provided name through the computer and discovered the name did not match Lerma’s description; Lerma later admitted possessing synthetic marijuana and, when Salinas searched his pockets at 11:04 p.m., Lerma fled; officers quickly caught and arrested him and recovered synthetic marijuana and 17 rocks of crack cocaine.
- Lerma moved to suppress the cocaine; the trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding the frisk and any prolongation of the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Lerma's Argument | State/Salinas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down of passenger | Pat-down was unsupported: mere nervousness, furtive movement, and lack of ID do not justify frisk | Officer was justified: solitary nighttime stop, outnumbered, furtive reaching, admitted pocketknife — objective facts support weapon concern | Pat-down was reasonable; frisk upheld |
| Whether Salinas unduly prolonged the traffic stop by questioning/searching passenger | Continued questioning and frisk unlawfully prolonged the stop beyond mission (relying on St. George) | Stop was not complete: officer had not finished driver-warrant checks, was alone initially, and safety-related steps (identification, ordering exit) were appropriate; actions were diligent and brief | No unlawful prolongation; detention not unduly extended |
| Whether evidence seized after arrest (cocaine) was admissible given suppression ruling sought | Cocaine should be suppressed as fruit of illegal frisk/prolonged stop | Arrest and search were lawful: flight, possession admissions, and offense in officer's presence supplied probable cause; any subsequent search incident to arrest valid | Evidence admissible; conviction-supporting evidence not tainted |
| Whether St. George controls/mandates suppression here | St. George requires suppression where continued detention occurs after stop completed; facts here parallel St. George | Distinguishable: St. George involved two officers who completed the stop before questioning passenger; here Salinas was alone and had not completed stop tasks | St. George is distinguishable; its rule does not mandate suppression here |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (pat-down for officer safety requires specific, articulable facts suggesting suspect is armed and dangerous)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer may order passengers out of vehicle during traffic stop for safety)
- O'Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (officer-alone, nighttime stop and prior knowledge of a weapon supported pat-down)
- St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (continued questioning after traffic stop completed held unreasonable)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (officer need not perform investigatory steps in a fixed order; brief, diligent investigation can be reasonable)