Rontae J-R Thornton v. State, 05-15-00770-CR

Rontae J-R Thornton was stopped for traffic violations around 2:30 a.m.; a juvenile female passenger (B.J.) was in the car and identified as born in 1999.
Officer Spano ran records and observed an active protective order entry; he became suspicious about the adult–juvenile relationship because of age disparity, time, motel parking, inconsistent stories, and mismatched last names.
Spano separated the parties, conducted additional questioning, and obtained Thornton’s voluntary consent to search a Motel 6 room (room key provided); the officer found signs the room had been recently occupied and feminine-hygiene items.
Spano Mirandized Thornton, asked to view Thornton’s phone; Thornton unlocked and handed the phone to Spano, who viewed messages and photos showing the juvenile partially nude.
Thornton moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the detention and the motel/phone searches, arguing illegal prolonged detention and coerced consent; the trial court denied the motion.
Thornton pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child, sexual assault of a child, and possession/promotion of child pornography; appeals argue suppression rulings were erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether police illegally prolonged the traffic stop/detention beyond the stop’s purpose	Thornton: Officers completed the traffic stop and lacked reasonable suspicion to continue detention to investigate relationship with B.J.	State: Officer developed reasonable suspicion during the stop (age disparity, motel, time, protective order entry, inconsistent stories) to extend detention	Court: Denied suppression; reasonable suspicion arose during the stop and justified continued detention
Whether consent to search motel room and phone was voluntary (and phone-search preservation)	Thornton: Consent was coerced (implied threat, prolonged detention); phone search also unlawful/fruit of poisonous tree; trial court never ruled on phone search legality for appeal preservation	State: Room consent was voluntary; phone complaint was not preserved for appeal (not argued specifically at suppression hearing); in any event searches lawful	Court: Consent to room search was voluntary (clear & convincing); phone-search complaint waived for appeal; suppression denial affirmed

Turrubiate v. State, 399 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-circumstances test)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion)
Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App.) (routine traffic-stop scope includes license/warrant checks)
St. George v. State, 197 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth) (new suspicion arising during stop can justify extension)
Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App.) (suspicious facts must meaningfully distinguish suspect from innocents)
Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App.) (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of circumstances)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda rule)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent judged objectively)
United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976) (consent voluntariness inquiry)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (detention length and diligence in investigation)