### NUM BER 13-08- 0015 6-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v. ROD NEY

A . OR TIZ , A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 94 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

Op inio n by

C hie f J us tice Vald ez The Stat e a p p e a l s a t r i a l c o u rt ’ s o r d e r g r a n t i n g a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s fi l e d by appel lee , R odney

Or ti z . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 44.01( a) (5 ) (V er non Su pp. 2008 )

. In a s i ng l e i s s ue , th e St at e c on te nd s th at th e tr i al c ou rt er r ed i n g r an ti ng Ortiz ’s
m o t i o n b e c a u s e t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e a n d a u t h o r i t y t o a r r e s tO rt i z . W eA l th o u g h O ff i c e r G a rc i a te s ti fie d th a t h e a rr e s te d O rti z f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f a p ro h i b i te d w e a p o n , s ee 1 T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 46

. 05 ( Ver non Supp. 2008) , t he St at e cont ends t hat he m eant unl awf ul car r y i ng o f a w e a p o n . See id

. § 4 6.02 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 08 ). 2 affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On Au gust 23, 20 07, Ortizw as indicte d for pos session of more than four bu t less than tw o hundred g ra ms of cocai ne that w as dis cov er ed bypoli ce dur ing a t ra ff icst op and
ar re st. See T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481. 115( d) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Or ti zfil ed a
w ri tten moti on to su ppr ess any phy si cal ev ide nce, co ntr aband, or tes ti mony

from l aw enforc ement officers reg ar din g the ar re st. O rt izal leg ed th at th e ev ide nce w as sei z ed during an illegal traff ic s top , arrest, an d incide nt sea rch, and that use of the evidence
v iol ated his federal a n d s ta te c onst it uti onal r ig hts and sev er al arti cl es of the c ode of
cr imi nal procedu re . See e. g. , U .S. C ON ST
. amend. IV, V, X IV. The St ate d id not respon d in w ri ti ng to Or

ti z ’s moti on. At t he s uppr ess ion hear ing , O ff ic er M ik e Garci a, a Cor pus Chr is ti pol ic e off ic er and the S t a t e ’ s o n l y w i t n e s s , t e s t i fi e d t h a t o n M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , h e s t o p p e d a v e h i c l e d r i v e n by Or ti zbec ause ithad an ex pired reg is tr ati on s ti ck er . Off ic er Garci a s tated thatas he approache d Or

ti z ’s v ehi cl e, O rt iz opened the c ar door , and Officer

Garci a s aw

a w ooden cl ub i n betw een t he door and the d ri v e r’s se at. Officer Garci a the n ar re ste d Or ti zfor po s s es s i on of a proh i bi te d w ea po n, s ea r c he d hi m, an d pl ac ed hi m i n Offi c er Garcia’s sq uad c ar . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 46. 05 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. D ur ing the sear ch, 1 Off ic er Garci a di sc ov er ed w hat h e bel iev ed w as a “ li ttl e bag g y ” of coca ine i n Or ti z ’s poc ket

. After Or ti zw as pla ced in the sq uad car , O ff ic er Garci a c all ed for back up, a nd he and another off ic er approac h e d t h e passeng er of the v ehi cl e and ask ed hi m to e x it

. The3

o ffi c e rs t h e n s e a r c h e d t h e v e h i c l e , a n d t h e y d i s c o v e r e d a b a g g y

c o n t a i n i n g a g r e e n l e a fy subs tanc e tha t t hey

bel iev ed to be mar ihu ana, a bag g y co ntai nin g whi te rock s t hat t hey bel iev ed to be c ra ck

co cai ne, tw o c ra ck

pi pes, a s cal e, an d a h andg un. On c ro ss ex aminat ion by Or ti z ’s couns el, Off ic er Gar ci a tes ti fied that the c lub w as a “ ti re buddy ,” thati t i s u sed for c heck ing the air press ur e of

tir es, and that iti s a n i tem th at
m a y b e i n a p e rs o n ’s c a r. W h e n a s k e d wh e t h e r t h e c lu b h a d b e e n m o d if ie d in a n y wa y, Of f icer Garcia respon ded , “It hasn ’t bee n mo dif ied.” Of f icer Garcia f urthe r testif ied th at his
search w as based upon Or ti z ’s ar re st. Ortizd id not presen t any testimo ny. Inste ad, Ortizargued tha t the tire budd y could not b e cons ide re d a cl ub under the penal co de bec ause ther e w as no ev ide nce that itw as modified

. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 46.01( 1) (Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ( defini ng a c lub as “a n i nst ru ment t hat i s s peci all y des ig ned, ma d e , o r a d a pted for th e pur pose of infli cti ng ser iou s b odi ly

i nju ry or deat h by

st ri ki ng a pe rs on w it h the i nst ru ment .

. . . ”)

. Therefor e, a c c o r d i n g t o O r

t i z , O ffi c e r

G a r c i a c o u l d no tha v e ar r e s t e d Or t i zfo r u n l a wfu l c a r r

y i n g o f a
w eap on becau se an unm odif ied tire bu ddy is not a w eap on u nde r the pe nal cod e. Ortiz pr ov ide d the tr ial cour

t w it h three c ases w hic h he cl aimed suppo rt ed hi s a rg ument. See Alexander

v. Sta te , 617 S.W .2d 2 69 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1981) ; Colem a n v. St a te , 790 S.W .2d 3 69 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1990, no pet .) ; s ee al so Low v. Sta te , No. 05-0 3-01 217 -CR, 2004 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 715 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2004, p e t ref’d) ( not d esi g nated for pub lication). The Stat e, w it hout re searchi ng Or ti z ’s arg ument, re spond ed by sp ecul ati ng thatthe fa c t s o f t h e i n s t a n t c a s e w e r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e fro m t h e c a s e s t h a t O rt i z c i t e d

. The St ate argued th at in this case , the tire bud dy w as not stored in th e trunk o f the car, where toolsT h e re c o rd d o e s n o t s h o w th a t t h e S ta te e v e r c o m p l i e d w i th th e tri a l c o u rt’ s re q u e s t. 2
4 are usu ally

ke pt, but was b y

O rtiz ’s side , w here it could ha v e be en e asily emp loyed as a
w eapon. Ther efore, acc or din g to the S tate, the ar re st w as suppo rt ed by probabl e c ause. The tr ial courtasked the State to prov ide suppor ti ng authori ty

f or its arg ument, and i t t ook the mat ter

under adv is ement. 2 The tr ial co urt g ra nted Or ti z ’s moti on to su p p re ss and is sued findi ng s o f f actand
conc lus ion s o f law

. Non e of the factual findi ng s ar e in dis pute. H ow ev er , t he St ate t akes issue w ith the t rial cou rt’s con clusions tha t Of f icer Ga rcia lacke d prob able cause to arrest Or ti zfor poss ess ion of

a prohi bit ed w eapon a nd th at al l ev ide nce obtai ned as a resul t of the i ll eg al ar re st shoul d be suppress ed. This appeal ens ued. II. D I S CUS S I ON In its sole is sue, the Stat e theori z es that the arrestand inc ide nt s ear ch w er e proper beca use: ( 1) p olice of f icers can arrest, wi tho ut a warrant , any of fend er for certain tr anspo rt ati on c ode v iol ati ons, see T EX . T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN . § 543. 001 ( Ver non 199 9) ; and (2 ) e ven thou g h Officer Gar ci a tho ug ht t hat t he ti re buddy w as a prohi bit ed w eapon a nd
a v iol ati on of s ect ion 46.05 of t he penal code, ther e w as ev ide nce of un law ful car ry ing of
a w e a p o n under s ect ion 46.0 2 of the penal co de bec ause the t ire buddy co uld be
c o n s id e re d a cl u b d u e t o it s p ro xim it y t o O rt iz. Or ti zco ntends thatthe St a te w aiv ed i ts firs t t heor y by not pr esent ing i t t o the tr ial court. W e agree. “In cases in w hich the Sta te i s the party app ealing, the basic principle of appell ate j ur is pr udenc e that points not arg ued attr ial ar e deemed to be w aiv ed appl ies equally to th e Sta te an d the def ense .” State v . Mer cado , 97 2 S. W .2 d 75 , 78 ( Tex

. C r i m.5

Ap p . 1 9 9 8 )

. Th e r e fo r e , w e c a n n o t r e v e rs e t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n o n a t h eorythatthe Stat e did notpr esentto it

. Id .; see als o St ate v . H uddleston , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 6 (T e x. App.–A ust in 2005, no pet .)

. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e r ev iew

the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on on a motion to suppr ess ev ide nce by appl y ing a bi furcat ed s tandard of r ev iew , defer ri ng to the t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion of his tor ic al facts t h a td e p e n d o n cr e d ib il it y, b u t r e v i e wi n g d e n o vo t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s a p p li c a t io n o f t h e la w. W iede v . St ate , 214 S.W .3d 17 , 25 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ; see Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d 8 5, 89 (Te x . Crim. App

. 199 7). T he trial court’s evi den tiaryruling “w ill be u phe ld
on a ppe al if

it is correct on any theory of law t h at f inds sup port in th e record. ” Gonz ale z
v. State , 195 S.W .3d 1 14, 1 26 ( Tex

. Cr im. App. 2006) ; see Rom er o v . St ate , 800 S.W .2d 539 , 543 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90). Gen erally , a ft e r gr ant ing def eren ce to th e trial court’s deter minat ion of his tor ic al facts, w e r ev iew de n o v o d e t e r minat ion s o f reas onabl e s uspi ci on and probabl e c ause. Guz m an , 955 S.W .2d a t 87. B. Probable Cause & Unlaw ful Carry ing of We apons In th is case, the trial court conclud ed th at Of f icer Garcia legally

stopp ed Ortiz’s
v ehi cl e for dr iv ing w it h a n e xpired reg is tr ati on s ti ck er , and nei ther par ty ch all eng es that conclu sion. T he issue in dispu te i s w het her Off icer Garcia had proba ble cau se to arrest Or ti z . Probabl e c ause to ar re st ex is ts w hen t he facts and ci rc umstan ces w it hin the arresting of

f icer's know ledge an d of w hich he has reaso nab ly trustw orthy info rmat ion are suf f icient in the mse lv es to warrant a pers o n o f r e ason able cautio n to be liev e an of fenseT h e c u rr e n t ve rs i o n o f s e c ti o n 4 6 .0 2 o f th e p e n a l c o d e p ro v i d e s i n re l e v a n t p a rt th a t: 3 ( a ) A p e r s o n c o m m its a n o f f e n s e ifth e p e r s o n in te n tio n a lly, k n o w in g ly, o r r e c k le s s ly car r i es on or abo ut hi s or her per son a handgun, i l l egal kni f e, or cl ub i ft he p er son i s n o t: ( 1) on t he p er son’ s own p r em i ses or pr em i ses un der t he p er son’ s cont r ol ; or ( 2) i nsi de of or di r ect l y en r out e t o a m ot or v ehi cl e t hat i s owned by t he p er son o r u n d e r th e p e r s o n 's c o n tr o l. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 4 6.02 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 08 ). 6 has been or

i s b ein g co mmitt ed. See A m or es v. State , 81 6 S. W .2 d 40 7, 41 3 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1991)

. The determ in a ti on of probabl e c ause hin g es on “ the fact ual and pr act ic al
cons ide ra ti ons of ev er y day l ife on whic h r e asona ble and pr udent [peopl e], not l eg al tech nicians, act.” W

oodwar d v . St ate , 668 S.W .2d 3 37, 3 45 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1982) ( op. on reh’ g ) (i nter nal ci tati on omi tted)

. Probabl e c a u se r eq uires more than mere sus pic ion b u tfa r l e s s e vid e n c e t h a n t h a tn e e d e d t o s u p p o rt a c o n vic t io n o r t o su p p o rt a f in d in g b y a pr eponderance of the ev ide nce. See id

. The r ule of probabl e c ause seek s t o accom mo dat e the so me time s o ppo sing i nte rests of : (1) saf eguardin g citiz ens f rom rash and unreason abl e pol ic e c onduc t and ( 2) g iv ing fair l eew ay to leg it imat e l aw

enforc ement eff orts. See i

d. at 34 5- 46. At t he ti me Or

ti zw as arrest ed, sec ti on 46.05 of the penal co de, t he unl awful c ar ry ing of a w eapon sta tute, prov ide d i n r ele v ant p art t hat a “ person commi ts an offense i f he int enti onal ly , k now ing ly , or r eck les sl y

ca rr ies on o r about his person a handg un, i ll eg al kni fe, or cl ub.” Ac t of Ju ne 20, 1997, 75th Leg ., R. S., ch. 1261, § 24 ( amended 20 07) (c ur re nt v ersi on at T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 46.02 (V er non Su pp. 2 008) ). A cl ub i s d efined 3
as “a n i nst ru ment t hat i s s peci all y des ig ned, made, or

adapt ed for the p ur pose of infli cti ng s er i ou s bo di l y i nj ur

y or de at h by s tr i k i ng a pe rs on w i th th e i ns tr um ent . . . .” T EX . P ENAL7

C OD E A NN . § 46 .01 (1). In Me za v

. St ate , th e c ou rt of c r i mi na l a ppeals held t ha t th ere mu s t be s om e ev ide nce that a “c lub ” w as an ins tr ument spec ific all y desi g ned, made, or adapt ed for the p u r p o s e o f i n fl i c t i n g s e r i o u s b o d i l y i nju ryor deat h i n o r d e r fo r a n u n l a wfu l c a r r

y i n g o f a
w eapon c onv ic ti on bas ed upon a c ri minal defendant’ s p oss ess ion of a “c lub ” to s ur v iv e a leg al suffici ency

ch all eng e. 652 S.W .2d 3 99, 4 00 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1983) ; see Colem an
v. State , 790 S.W .2d 3 69, 3 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1990, no pet .) ( “W e c annot infer thatan ins tr ument merely

des cr ibe d as a ‘ cl ub’ i s a n i nst ru ment s p e cifical ly des ig ned, made, or adapted for th e pur pose of infli cti ng se ri ous bodi ly i nju ry or deat h.” ); see als o Low v . St ate , 2004 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 715, at * 9- 10. Rely ing on the co de o f criminal p ro cedu re, the State argues that Of f icer Garcia per cei v ed the tir e buddyto be a cl ub becaus e of i ts prox imi ty

to Or ti z ,, and he, therefore, had probabl e caus e to ar re st Or ti zand search him. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 14. 01(b ) ( “A pea ce of

f icer may arrest an of fend er w ithou t a w arrant for any of fense commi tted in his pr esenc e or w it hin hi s v iew .” ) (V er non 200 5)

. Or ti zr espon ds by

arg uin g th att hi s c as e i s i nd i s ti ng ui s ha bl e fr om Low v. Sta te , 2004 T ex . App. LEX IS 9715, at * 9- 10. W e ag re e. In Low , t he c ri minal defendant w as detai n e d i n h is vehi cl e w hil e he w as tr y ing to lea v e a mov ie theat er

parki ng lot bya pol ic e of ficer inv est ing automobil e break- ins

. Id . at *2. The o f

f ice r ca lle d for back

up, and w hen t he bac k u p off ic er approache d the passe nger’s side of

the vehicle, he y elled, “He’s got a st ick, h e’s got a weapo n.” Id

. The defend a n tw a s a r r e s t e d , c h a r g e d , a n d c o n v i c t e d fo r u n l a wfu l c a r r

y i n g o f a w eapon,8

spec ific all y , a cl ub. Id . At t rial, the of f icer described the “stick” and te stif ied th at it could be used to infli ct an inj ur y on another

. Id . at *5. The de fendant’s father tes ti fied th at he fashio ned the stick f rom th e ha ndle of a shovel or broom and that it w as designed t o kno ck ag ain st ti re s t o c heck

ti re pr ess ur e. Id. at * 6. The Da ll as Cou rtof Appeal s rev ersed the
conv ic ti on and re nder ed an acq uit tal bec ause itfound thatthe Stat e di d notmeet it s burden t o prov e tha t t he “ sti ck ” w as a “c lub ” pursuant to sec ti on 46.01( 1) of t he pena l code. Id . at* 10. T he St ate conte nds th at th e tire bud dy’s proximity t o Ortizco uld allow a reaso nab le and prude nt person to inf er tha t it could be used as a w eap on. The legi slature , howev er, has not c r i mi n a l i z e d s u c h a n i n fe r e n c e , b u ti n s t e a d c h o s e t o d e fi n e a c l u b a s “ an instrum ent that is special ly des ign ed, m ade, or

adapted for the pur pose of infli cti ng se ri ous bod ily injury or dea th by stri king a person wi th th e instrum ent . . . .” T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 46. 01( 1) ( emphasi s a dded)

. The Stat e did notproduce any ev ide nce that the i nst ru ment in Or ti z ’ s c ar h ad b ee n “ s pe c i al l y

d es i g ne d, ma de , or

a da pt ed ” i n an y

w ay . Moreover,
w hen as ked by

Or ti z ’s co unsel on c ro ss -e x aminat ion w hether the “c lub ” had bee n modi fied in a n yw a y , O f

f ic e r G a rc ia re s p o n d e d , “I th a s n ’t b e e n m o d if ie d

. ” T h u s , t h e S t a t e ’s o wn w it n e ss p ro v ide d tes ti mony thatunder mined it s a ss erti on th at t he ti re buddy w as a c lub

. In t his ca se, Off ice r Gar ci a di d notpr esentany tes ti mony

thatw oul d l ead a
re asona ble and pr udent person to beli ev e that th e ti re buddy w as a c lub , as defined by the penal co de. Therefor e, t he tr ial co urt d id not er r by hol din g thatOfficer

Garci a l ack ed prob able cause to arrest Ortizfor unlawfu l carry ing of a w eap on a n d b y g ra nting Ortiz ’s
mo tion to supp ress.9

The Stat e’s so le is sue is ov er ru led

. III . C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

g ra nti ng Or

ti z ’s moti on to su ppr ess i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Publ is h. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b) Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 23rd day

of Apr il , 200 9.