Pinkston, Dezmone
PD-0444-15
| Tex. App. | May 26, 2015Background
- Police on midnight foot patrol at Regency Oaks, an apartment complex known for violent and narcotics crimes, heard loud male/female yelling from another courtyard and decided to investigate.
- Officer Galbraith approached; the couple stopped arguing and began to walk away upon seeing officers.
- Officer ordered them to return; the woman stopped but Pinkston continued walking, and officers chased and arrested him for evading detention.
- A search incident to arrest uncovered what appeared to be cocaine; Pinkston pled guilty to possession (<1 gram) but reserved the right to challenge the legality of the initial detention.
- The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding the detention lacked reasonable suspicion and relying on Gurrola v. State; the State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals arguing Gurrola is outdated and inconsistent with later precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pinkston) | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Pinkston to investigate a possible assault/domestic violence | Galbraith had specific, articulable facts (late-night loud yelling, high-crime area, couple’s flight on seeing police) justifying a stop to investigate | The facts were no more than a heated argument and mere walking away; Gurrola controls: no reasonable suspicion for detention | The Court of Appeals held no reasonable suspicion; detention was unlawful and suppression required |
| Whether flight from officers alone can justify detention | State: combined with other factors (time, location, nature of yelling) flight supported reasonable suspicion | Pinkston: right to refuse questions and walk away absent reasonable suspicion | Held: walking away did not supply reasonable suspicion under Gurrola |
| Whether Gurrola remains good law for reasonable-suspicion analysis | State: Gurrola’s “as consistent with innocent activity” language has been repudiated by later CCA precedent (e.g., Woods, Derichsweiler); courts should apply totality-of-circumstances | Pinkston: relied on Gurrola to show detention lacked reasonable suspicion | Held: Court of Appeals followed Gurrola and reversed; State sought review arguing Gurrola is outdated |
| Whether the suppression error was harmful given plea | Pinkston: suppression error affected plea leverage and therefore was harmful | State: disputed but argued detention was lawful under current standards | Held: reversal of conviction and remand for further proceedings (error deemed harmful) |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes standard for reasonable-suspicion stops)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable suspicion need not point to a specific statutory offense; focus on sufficiently detailed, reliable information)
- Gurrola v. State, 877 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (applied an "as consistent with innocent activity" formulation to find no reasonable suspicion)
- Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (repudiated the "as consistent with innocent activity" test relied on in Gurrola)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applies totality-of-circumstances; cited Gurrola in discussing categorization of police-citizen encounters)