State v. Robert Lee Erspamer
09-16-00474-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Early morning stop: Trooper Oelsner saw a car parked on the grassy shoulder of a two-lane road; the driver (Erspamer) was alone and said he had pulled over to check Facebook.
- Oelsner approached, rolled down his patrol-car passenger window, used an alley light, and asked if the driver was okay; he did not initially activate emergency lights or draw a weapon.
- Oelsner observed signs (red/bloodshot eyes, flushed face, slurred speech per his testimony) and smelled alcohol; he then activated his emergency lights, ordered the driver to park and step out, and conducted field sobriety tests.
- The driver was arrested for DWI; subsequent blood test confirmed intoxication. The dashcam video lacked audio for the initial encounter.
- Procedural posture: Trial court granted Erspamer's motion to suppress, concluding the initial contact was not a consensual encounter but a detention without reasonable suspicion; the State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Erspamer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial contact was a consensual encounter or a Fourth Amendment seizure | Oelsner's approach was a consensual community-caretaking encounter until he activated lights; therefore Fourth Amendment scrutiny did not apply before lights were turned on | The approach and Oelsner's verbal/physical show of authority (signal/command to roll window down) made the encounter a seizure from inception | Court held the trial court did not err: the encounter was a seizure (not consensual) because Erspamer complied with a police command and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave |
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion to detain Erspamer before lights/command | Oelsner had facts (time, location, driver behavior, signs of intoxication, odor) that gave reasonable suspicion to detain for DWI | No reasonable suspicion existed at inception; lawful parking and absence of distress/traffic violation undermined suspicion | Court affirmed that there was no reasonable suspicion at initial encounter; subsequent detention was unlawful and evidence suppressed |
| Whether community-caretaking justified the detention | State suggested welfare concerns could justify initial approach/investigation | Erspamer argued community-caretaking ended once he stated he was fine and compliance was to an officer's command | Court did not reach or rely on community-caretaking justification (State waived argument on appeal); suppression affirmed |
| Standard of review: deference to trial court findings vs. de novo application of law | State argued mixed question; factual findings should be reviewed for deferential standard | Erspamer relied on trial court credibility findings that supported suppression | Court applied de novo review to legal classification but deferred to trial court factual credibility findings and affirmed ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (temporary investigative detention is a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (not every police-citizen encounter implicates the Fourth Amendment)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (three categories of police-citizen interactions: encounter, investigative detention, arrest)
- Ebarb v. State, 598 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (compliance with police orders to roll down window can constitute a detention)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses scope of consensual encounters and detentions)
- Castleberry v. State, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consensual encounter principles)
- State v. Gray, 158 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (when trial court files findings, appellate review focuses on whether law was properly applied to those facts)
- Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (legal classification of encounter vs. detention is reviewed de novo)