State v. Castleberry
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 283
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Castleberry was approached by Officer Barrett in a high-crime area behind a closed business at about 3:00 a.m. on May 31, 2008.
- Barrett asked for identification; Castleberry reached for his waistband, and Barrett instructed him to raise his hands for a patdown.
- Castleberry again reached for his waistband; Barrett detained him and conducted a weapons frisk, during which Castleberry threw down a baggie that contained cocaine.
- Initial suppression motion succeeded; the trial court found the encounter to be a detention based on lack of reasonable suspicion, and suppressed the cocaine.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression ruling, agreeing that Barrett detained Castleberry without sufficient reasonable suspicion.
- The State sought discretionary review to determine whether the initial encounter was consensual and whether the totality of circumstances supported detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was consensual or a Fourth Amendment detention | Castleberry argues it was detention; the State contends it was consensual. | Castleberry contends no reasonable suspicion existed to justify detention. | Encounter was consensual at first; detention required reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether reaching for the waistband created reasonable suspicion justifying detention | Castleberry's waistband reach could be innocent identification behavior. | Barrett could reasonably infer possible weapon or threat from waistband reach. | There was reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk based on waistband reach and surrounding circumstances. |
| Whether the waistband reach was enough to justify a stop under totality of the circumstances | The court should not infer criminal activity from innocuous actions. | The combination of high-crime area and suspicious behavior supports reasonable suspicion. | Totality supported a permissible brief detention and frisk. |
| Whether the pat-down was justified given officer safety concerns | No weapons were observed; there was no threat. | The officer reasonably feared for safety given the circumstances and suspect’s behavior. | A limited pat-down was justified by reasonable suspicion. |
| Whether abandonment of the cocaine before arrest breaks the causal chain and admissibility of the evidence | Abandoned cocaine would be fruit of the prior unlawful detention. | Abandonment occurred during or after the detention and before final arrest. | Cocaine admissible as not the fruit of an unlawful seizure; abandonment did not taint admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consent-based encounters; furtive detentions depend on totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (whether a vehicle stop is a seizure depends on totality of circumstances)
- Hodari D. v. United States, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure occurs when show of force or submission to authority occurs; abandonment doctrine later discussed)
- Garcia-Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 236 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (framework for reviewing suppression rulings and mixed questions of law and fact)
- Castleberry v. State, 2010 WL 175096 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2010) (intermediate court’s analysis on reasonable suspicion and consensual encounter clarified)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (recognition of heightened suspicion in certain environments)