Soto, Ricardo
PD-1356-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2015Background
- Ricardo Soto was stopped in a vehicle with four others for equipment violations; the driver consented to a vehicle search.
- Officer Joe Abreu removed all occupants and decided to pat-down for weapons; Soto wore a cap that Abreu removed from Soto’s head.
- When the cap was removed a folded dollar bill containing less than one gram of cocaine fell out; Soto was later convicted of possession (<1 gram).
- Soto moved to suppress evidence claiming the frisk exceeded Terry: Abreu did not state he feared for safety, Soto was cooperative, and Abreu removed the cap rather than first patting it.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning officer safety and facts about an associate’s criminal history justified the frisk and cap removal.
- Soto petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, arguing the Tenth Court misapplied Terry and allowed a search not particularized to Soto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Soto) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Terry frisk | Officer lacked particularized reasonable suspicion toward Soto; mere association or presence in vehicle is insufficient | Officer had reasonable concern for safety given an occupant’s criminal history, multiple occupants removed, and vehicle search context | Court of Appeals: frisk valid under Terry; affirmed trial court denial of suppression |
| Scope of frisk (removal of cap) | Removal of cap exceeded Terry’s limited pat-down scope; officer should have pat-touched first | Cap was outer clothing; not transparent; officer’s training taught that removing cap is necessary to detect certain bladed weapons | Court of Appeals: removing the cap was within scope given safety concern; affirmed |
| Reliance on associate’s criminal history | Such information cannot, by itself, justify a frisk of Soto | Knowledge about another occupant’s history plus circumstances justified pat-downs of all occupants | Court of Appeals: collective facts (including associate’s history) supported officer’s actions |
| Whether frisk sought weapons (vs. evidence) | Removal of cap and resulting search effectively sought contraband (narcotics), not weapons | Officer testified his intent was weapon safety; discovery of drugs was incidental | Court of Appeals: treated search as a weapons frisk justified under Terry; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes limited stop-and-frisk standard based on reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (requires particularized suspicion directed at the person frisked; proximity to suspects alone insufficient)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (frisk/search must be individualized; presence in premises with suspect does not justify search of a bystander)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (Texas application of Terry; emphasizes need for specific, articulable facts to justify frisk)
- O'Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (officer need not testify to subjective fear, but reasonable, articulable facts must support frisk)