Webb, Max Edward
PD-0051-15
Tex. App.Mar 2, 2015Background
- Webb was observed leaving a motel room; his companion dropped a baggie later identified as methamphetamine. Officers approached to give a trespass warning.
- Deputy Marshall saw a knife in Webb’s back pocket, detained him, and conducted a frisk. The deputy recovered two knives and felt an object in Webb’s groin area.
- Webb was handcuffed, fell/pinned to the floor during the encounter, officers cut his pants and retrieved a cylinder of methamphetamine wrapped in pantyhose. Webb was arrested.
- Webb moved to suppress the methamphetamine as the product of an illegal Terry stop/frisk; the trial court denied the motion and Webb pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Webb failed to preserve error as to the scope of the frisk because trial counsel limited argument to justification to initiate the frisk rather than whether it exceeded Terry’s permissible scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention/frisk was justified under Terry | Stop and frisk were unjustified; officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain or frisk Webb | Officers had reasonable suspicion: high-crime area, companion dropped meth, Webb nervous, seen with knife and duffel bags | Court held detention and initial frisk were justified under Terry (reasonable suspicion existed) |
| Whether frisk exceeded permissible Terry scope | Even if frisk initially justified, officers exceeded its scope after finding knives and handcuffing/pinning Webb; subsequent search was a narcotics search | Search remained a single Terry frisk conducted for officer safety; appellant failed to preserve a distinct complaint about scope at trial | Court held Webb failed to preserve error on the scope issue and therefore did not reach merits; affirmed denial of suppression |
| Preservation: whether motion/argument preserved challenge to scope of frisk | Trial counsel’s written motion and bench brief challenged constitutionality of the search generally and questioned continuing the search after weapons were found | State: counsel’s pleadings and hearing argument focused on justification to initiate frisk, not a discrete scope objection; pro se motion was withdrawn and no ruling obtained | Court held counsel’s objections were not specific enough to preserve a discrete challenge to the frisk’s scope under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) |
| Whether evidence should be excluded under Texas and Federal Constitutions if frisk exceeded Terry | If scope exceeded Terry, recovered meth is fruit of unconstitutional search and should be suppressed | State contends no scope violation preserved; if preserved, would assert officer safety justification and probable cause standards | Court did not decide merits because no preservation; suppression denial upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops and limited pat-downs for officer safety)
- Davis v. State, 829 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (pat-down exceeded Terry where officer opened a matchbox; scope limits enforceable)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation rule: objections must be sufficiently clear to afford trial court opportunity to address error)
- Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings; deference to fact findings)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (officer need only reasonably suspect danger to justify a protective frisk)