Monjaras, Tairon Jose, 664 S.W.3d 921

In Dec. 2018 two uniformed Houston officers observed Monjaras walking in an apartment complex and followed him; they stopped without lights/siren and announced a consensual encounter.
Officers questioned Monjaras, who answered basic ID questions and attempted to write his name; officers were in uniform with holstered firearms and a patrol car nearby.
When asked for consent to search, Monjaras hesitated and began emptying his pockets; Officer Sallee touched his arm/elbow/back and Officer Starks stepped close, commanded “manos, manos” ("hands, hands") with palms out.
After that show of authority Monjaras consented; officers searched his bag (found bullets) and his person (found a pistol), leading to arrest for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
Trial court denied Monjaras’s motion to suppress; he pled guilty but preserved appeal. The First Court of Appeals held the encounter was consensual; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the consensual encounter escalated into an investigative detention and remanded to determine whether reasonable suspicion existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the police-citizen interaction was a consensual encounter or an investigative detention	Monjaras: initial contact was consensual but escalated to a detention when officers physically restrained him and ordered him to show his hands before the search, so consent was not voluntary	State: encounter remained consensual throughout; officers did not block path, use lights/siren, or display weapons and Monjaras voluntarily answered questions and consented	Court: Initially consensual, but police conduct (hands on arm/back; officer stepping close and commanding “manos, manos”) objectively converted the encounter into an investigative detention; reversed appellate court and remanded to decide if reasonable suspicion existed

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, including threatening presence, physical touching, or language indicating compliance is required)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (encounter remains consensual so long as police do not convey that compliance is required)
Castleberry v. State, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (officer conduct is the most important factor in determining seizure)
Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (use of Mendenhall factors to assess what a reasonable person would perceive)
Furr v. State, 499 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (consensual encounter vs. detention is reviewed de novo; totality-of-circumstances test)
Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (definition of consensual encounter: citizen free to leave)
Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (public exposure of conduct reduces Fourth Amendment protection)