Wade, Christopher James, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1314

Christopher Wade sat in his work truck at a public boat ramp during lunch; a game warden (Campbell) approached to check on him, noting no boat or fishing gear attached.
Campbell asked questions; Wade said he was eating lunch, lived nearby, and was looking to buy property; Campbell suspected these statements were lies and that Wade was unusually nervous.
Wade refused a request to search his vehicle and replied twice to questions about weapons with "Why are you doing this to me?"
Campbell ordered Wade out of the truck and conducted a pat-down; Wade then disclosed a pipe in the truck and officers found a small amount of methamphetamine.
Trial court denied Wade’s suppression motion; Wade pled guilty and appealed. The court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review.
The Court held the detention and frisk violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked objective, particularized reasonable suspicion beyond Wade’s nervousness and refusal to cooperate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wade)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Wade’s refusal to answer questions or consent to a search (plus nervousness and allegedly inconsistent statements) provided reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk him	Refusal to cooperate and nervousness cannot, by themselves or primarily, supply reasonable suspicion to escalate a consensual encounter into a Terry stop and frisk	The combination of changing stories, nervous demeanor, and refusal to answer questions about weapons created an objective, particularized basis for reasonable suspicion and justified the stop and frisk	The Court held the refusal and nervousness were insufficient and could not be the prominent factor; the detention and frisk were unlawful
Whether the frisk produced admissible evidence or was "fruit of the poisonous tree"	The frisk was illegal, so the discovery of the pipe and methamphetamine was tainted and must be suppressed	The frisk was justified by reasonable suspicion, so resulting evidence was admissible	The Court held the frisk was unsupported; the derivative statements/evidence were the fruit of an illegal seizure and not admissible

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish reasonable suspicion for a detention)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (a seizure requires submission to a show of authority or physical force)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (refusal to respond during a consensual encounter does not justify detention where no other suspicion exists)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers may stop and frisk based on reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity and danger)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishes when conduct during a consensual encounter can give rise to a new reasonable suspicion justifying a frisk)