Sam Kemp v. State
12-16-00227-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- On July 3, 2015, Officer Brandon Lott (midnight shift) observed conduct at a convenience store he believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction: a man approached the passenger side, retrieved an item from his pocket, handed it to Sam Kemp through the passenger window, then walked away.
- The vehicle left the lot with squealing tires and a wide right turn; Officer Lott initiated a traffic stop and observed an open container of alcohol in the vehicle.
- Kemp passed field sobriety tests; while looking for additional alcohol, Officer Lott saw a small plastic bag of crack cocaine in plain view and arrested Kemp for possession of a controlled substance.
- Kemp moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion because the officer’s conclusion about a traffic violation was conclusory and lacked specific articulable facts.
- The trial court denied the motion; Kemp was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 18 months in state jail. The court of appeals reviewed the suppression ruling and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop/detention was supported by reasonable suspicion | Kemp: Officer lacked specific, articulable facts to reasonably suspect criminal activity or a traffic violation; officer’s belief alone insufficient | State: Officer observed objective, specific facts (hand‑to‑hand exchange at a location known for drug activity, vehicle behavior) that, plus his training/experience, gave reasonable suspicion to detain | Court: Detention justified under reasonable‑suspicion standard; suppression properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial judge as factfinder; credibility deference)
- Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (view evidence in strongest legitimate light for prevailing party)
- Laney v. State, 117 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (affirm suppression rulings supported by record or correct on any theory)
- Woodard, 341 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishing consensual encounters, investigatory detentions, arrests)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (consensual encounter can be terminated by citizen)
- Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (investigative detentions implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable‑suspicion standard and totality of the circumstances)
- Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (objective standard; officer’s subjective intent irrelevant)
- York v. State, 342 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reasonable suspicion may exist even where conduct is as consistent with innocent activity)
- Rocha v. State, 464 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (officer observations at known narcotics location can support detention)
- Wiley v. State, 388 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (training/experience plus observed hand‑to‑hand exchange supported reasonable suspicion)
- State v. 1998 Toyota Land Cruiser, 277 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) (similar principle supporting detention based on suspected drug activity)