679 S.W.3d 834
Tex. App.2023Background
- Officers Sallee and Starks encountered Tairon Monjaras at midday in a high‑crime apartment complex; they drove past him, made a U‑turn, and briefly lost sight of him.
- They reapproached without using lights/siren and engaged in a consensual encounter; Monjaras gave his name, birthdate, residence, and admitted a prior domestic‑violence arrest; he appeared nervous.
- During the encounter the officers asked to search him; as Sallee placed a hand on Monjaras and Starks said “manos, manos,” the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the encounter escalated into a detention.
- Body‑camera footage and officer testimony were the evidence actually considered by the trial court at the suppression hearing; an offense report was admitted but not reviewed by the trial court prior to ruling.
- The trial court denied Monjaras’s motion to suppress, and he was convicted (felon in possession). The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded; on remand this concurrence agrees the detention lacked reasonable suspicion and the suppression ruling was erroneous but criticizes reliance on the unconsidered offense report.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Monjaras' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court may rely on an offense report that the trial court admitted but did not consider before ruling on suppression | The State implicitly treats the entire record (including the offense report) as reviewable | The trial court did not consider the offense report before ruling, so appellate review must be limited to the evidence the trial court actually used (officers' testimony and bodycam) | The court may not rely on the offense report on appeal because the trial court did not consider it when ruling on suppression; review limited to evidence actually considered by trial court (testimony and bodycam) |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain/search Monjaras at the moment Starks said “manos” while Sallee had his hand on Monjaras | Four circumstances justified reasonable suspicion when considered together: high‑crime area, avoiding eye contact, flight from officers, and nervousness (plus clothing) | Those circumstances, individually and in totality, were consistent with ordinary, lawful behavior and did not produce specific, articulable facts amounting to reasonable suspicion | No reasonable suspicion existed at the moment of detention; the detention was based on a mere hunch, so the search/seizure was unconstitutional and suppression was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Monjaras v. State, 664 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (CCA holding the encounter became a detention when officer said “manos” while another had hand on suspect)
- Black v. State, 362 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate review of suppression is limited to evidence considered by trial court)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (evidence before trial court consists of what judge saw, used, or considered in making ruling)
- Duran v. State, 396 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable‑suspicion analysis limited to facts known before detention; audiovisual recordings may be reviewed de novo if indisputable)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (distinguishing consensual encounters from investigatory detentions; reasonable suspicion required to detain)
- Johnson v. State, 622 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (defines reasonable suspicion as particularized, objective basis combining articulable facts and reasonable inferences)
- Kerwick v. State, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (reasonable‑suspicion standard: some unusual activity, connection to detainee, and relation to crime)
- Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (presence in high‑crime area and furtive gestures insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (totality of bizarre, repeated behavior can support detention where it reasonably suggests a criminal motive)