Patricia Latavia Wright v. State, 03-17-00158-CR

On Sept. 3, 2015, two uniformed San Marcos patrol officers were posted outside a hotel room under surveillance by a narcotics task force; they observed a silver Mercury drive into the lot and slow near their position.
The officers approached the vehicle on foot (one behind the other) carrying flashlights; Officer Aubry said "Ma’am," and the driver, Patricia Wright, stopped and rolled down the passenger-side window.
While speaking through the open window, the officers observed a bag of marijuana in Wright’s lap; after seeing the marijuana, they detained her for further investigation.
A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a counterfeit $20 bill in the center console and an outstanding arrest warrant; Wright was arrested and later indicted for forgery.
Wright moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing the officers’ approach and statements constituted an unlawful investigative detention unsupported by reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted her.
On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals reviewed whether the initial contact was a consensual encounter or a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion and affirmed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ approach and statement constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure (investigative detention)	Wright: officers’ approach in uniform, with flashlights, and Aubry saying "Ma’am" amounted to a show of authority causing detention without reasonable suspicion	State: the contact was a consensual encounter; officers did not block vehicle, display weapons, use lights/sirens, or otherwise compel compliance	Court: interaction was a consensual encounter, not a seizure; denial of suppression affirmed

Furr v. State, 499 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explains consensual encounter vs. seizure standard and appellate review)
Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App.) (sets out test whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate encounter)
Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court) (defines seizure by physical force or show of authority)
Garcia-Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App.) (focus on officer conduct and surroundings to assess "We Who Must Be Obeyed" message)
Castleberry v. State, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consensual encounters need no suspicion; seizure requires display of authority)
Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App.) (consensual encounter doctrine and factors showing seizure)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. Supreme Court) (officer approaches in public do not automatically implicate Fourth Amendment)