Robert Charles v. State, 14-16-00174-CR

Robert Charles was arrested for possession of marijuana after officers approached a parked van in an apartment-complex parking lot following a tenant complaint about heavy foot traffic.
Officers approached on foot; one officer went to the passenger side (where Charles sat) and used a flashlight to alert occupants; the partner approached the driver side.
Officer testified he smelled marijuana during the initial contact and then conducted a pat-down during which marijuana was found; Charles consented to the search.
Charles and a passenger testified the officers knocked on the window, ordered Charles out, and positioned themselves so the occupants were not free to leave; Charles contended the initial interaction was an investigative detention lacking reasonable suspicion.
The trial court found the encounter consensual (not a Fourth Amendment seizure) and denied the motion to suppress; Charles pleaded guilty preserving his right to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial police contact was an investigative detention (seizure) or a consensual encounter	Charles: officers’ actions (knocking, commanding, positioning behind van) created a seizure; he was not free to leave	State: officers merely approached to ask questions, used flashlight to alert presence, did not block exit or use force/authoritative commands	Court: Interaction was a consensual encounter; no unlawful seizure before odor detected

State v. Perez, 85 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defines consensual encounters vs. detentions and arrests)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (circumstances indicating seizure include multiple officers, display of weapon, touching, or authoritative language)
State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. Crim. App.) (officer’s subjective intent to investigate is relevant only if communicated by objective indicia of authority)
State v. Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant bears initial burden to show a seizure occurred during police contact)
Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App.) (use of spotlights and other factors can support finding of detention)