State v. James Ray Junek
04-15-00395-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- On Jan. 16, 2014, Kerr County deputies received five 911 reports (four identified callers) of a white Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban driving recklessly on IH‑10 between mile markers ~486–505. Callers gave vehicle description and location.
- Deputy Malek located a vehicle matching the description near mile marker 503, observed other motorists point to it, and followed it as it exited at mile marker 505 onto Harper Road.
- The driver (Appellee James Ray Junek) pulled off the roadway and parked in the 900 block of Harper Road without deputies activating lights, siren, or otherwise signaling him to stop; Junek testified he pulled over to nap and was unaware of the patrol car until after he turned off the highway.
- Deputies approached and engaged in a consensual encounter; they observed slow/slurred speech and delayed answers and (according to one deputy) smelled alcohol after prompting.
- Based on the 911 reports and deputies’ observations, deputies requested field sobriety tests. The trial court granted Junek’s suppression motion, finding he had been unlawfully detained and that deputies lacked reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Junek) | Held (trial court action) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Junek "detained" when he pulled off IH‑10 of his own volition? | The stop was a consensual encounter — deputies did not assert authority (no lights/siren/signals) and Junek voluntarily pulled over; thus no seizure occurred at that moment. | Junek argued he was detained by police conduct and therefore subject to a Fourth Amendment seizure. | Trial court found Junek was detained when he parked and suppressed evidence (granting suppression). |
| Did deputies have reasonable suspicion to convert the encounter into an investigatory detention? | The State: yes — five 911 calls by identified witnesses describing reckless driving, corroboration by deputies locating the vehicle, plus deputies’ observations (slurred speech, slow answers) provided specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion for DWI and detention. | Junek argued deputies lacked sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain him for investigation. | Trial court concluded deputies lacked reasonable suspicion and suppressed evidence. |
| Does officers’ subjective intent (treating contact as a "welfare check") defeat an objective reasonable‑suspicion analysis? | The State: no — objective facts control; deputies’ stated subjective intent as a welfare check is irrelevant if objective facts (911 tips + observations) justified investigative detention. | Junek relied on deputies’ subjective characterization and the trial court credited that to find no reasonable suspicion. | Trial court emphasized deputies’ subjective intent and credited it in suppressing the evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review and mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual encounters do not implicate Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (objective test whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate encounter)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (collective knowledge doctrine and considering dispatcher/911 information in reasonable‑suspicion analysis)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (officers may rely on information from others; reasonable suspicion can rest on collective facts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop and frisk / investigatory detention standard)