### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 433 -CR

St e phe n M ar k Hur le y , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -20 6188 , HO NORAB LE MI CHAEL LY NCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Stephen Ma

rk Hurle y appea ls his ju d g me nt o f

c o nv ic ti o n

f o r f e lony driving while intox icated e nh a

n c e d b y a prior convic tion for possession of a c ontrolled substance . Following his waiver o f t ri al by

jury , appellant e ntere d pleas of “ g uilty ” and “ true.” The trial c ourt assesse d punis hme nt at f

ive y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.

P OIN T OF ER RO R I n his sole point of e rror , appellant advanc es the contention that the “tria l court er red i n d e n yi n g t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s b e c a

u s e t h e r e w a s a

d e t e n t i o nn o ta

m e r e e n c o u n t e r . ” A c tu a l l y, there wer e two motions to suppress, one to suppress stateme nts made to the ar re s t i n g office r, andAppellant in his sole point of err or has not addr essed or briefe d the admissibilit y

of var ious 1 statements m ade by appellant to Offic er John Paul C lauch. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.1(h). The ref ore, no thi ngis p re se nte d o n a

pp e a l a s a re su lt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on

the se state me nts
. Of fi c e r Cla uc h re late d that the mot or a ssi st p oli c y

wa s in so me re sp e c ts d isc re tio na ry wi th 2 the of fi c e r. I t di d n ot a

pp ly on a ll o c c a sio ns . 2 another to suppress evidenc e re sulting fr om an illeg al detention, sea rch a nd seizure. B oth were
o v erru l edb y

t h e t ri al co u rt at a p re t ri al h ea ri n g. 1
BACK GR OUND The only court re porter’ s rec ord (state ment of fa cts) bef ore this c ourt is the pretria l hear ing on the m otions to suppress. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 28.01(6) (West 2006). The only witness to testify

at the hear ing w as the a

rre sting off

icer , J ohn Paul Clauch, a for mer troope r with the Texas Depar

tment of Public Safety

(“D PS”). Of fi c e r C la uc h testi fi e d th a t on

No ve mbe r 3 0, 20 05 , h e wa s p a tr oll ingon State Hi g hw ay 71 in T ra vis County . H is g e ne ra l duty wa s tr a ff ic law e nf or c e me nt. At a

bo ut 3:1 0 p .m. that afte rnoon, Off

icer Clauch obser

ved a F ord Taur

us parke d on the side of State Hig hway 71, partially on the pave d or improved shoulder and par tially on the unimproved shoulder o f dirt and g rave l. Office r Clauch e x plain ed t h at h e st opped his patrol vehic le behind the F ord Taur us. He stated that he a cted in ac corda nce w ith the DPS’s mot or assist policy ; requi ri n g an o ffice r in a marke d police vehic le, who observe s a mot or vehic le on the side of the road, w hether the vehicle was occupie d or not, “to stop a nd chec k by

and make sure e very

thing wa s okay .” He f

elt the policy

was 2 based on “ common sense a nd g ood judgme nt.”Offic er Clauch stated that the rea r flashing lights are “to aler t a ny body coming up behind 3 me that I am on the side of the road outside the ve hicle.” 3 Offic er Clauch related that when he stopped his patrol vehicle, its r ea r f l as h ing lights, ca mera , and “mike” came on automatically . The re ar lig hts are not visi ble from the front of the vehicle. O f

f ic e r Cl a u c h s tate d

th a t t h e a u to mati c a c ti v a ti o no f

th e f la s h in g r e ar

li g h ts w a s for
s a f e t y. There was he avy

motor vehicle tra ffic on S tate Hig hway 71 at that time of the a fternoon. 3 As Off icer Clauch appr oache d the parke d Taurus vehicle, he hear d the eng ine runningand sawone indivi d u al i n the ca

r. He did not observe a

ny damag e to the Ta

urus, flat tires, or

other matter s int e rf e ri ngwi th t

he op e ratio n o f t

he ve hic le . H e sa

w n o s ig ns of

dis tr e ss. Offic er Clauc h testified that the Taurus was not illeg ally parke d, nor did he see othe r violations of the law whe n he stopped his vehicle to inquire if assistance was ne eded.

Offic er Clauc h, on cross-e x amination, testified that he wa nted to talk to the occupa

nt of the Taur

u s w h o w a s n o t f

r e e to dr iv e aw ay , b u t a d d e d : “
. . . I me an I n e e d e d to g o up and approa ch him and make sure e very thing wa s okay , if that is what y our question is.” The of fice r then made c lear

that the occ upant was f

ree to leave a

nd would have be en allowe d to drive off
. Offic er Clauc h testified that wh en he re ache d the Taur us, the occ upant, whom he identified a s appellant, wa s “passe d out” in the driver ’s seat with the eng ine still running. The do or s w e re loc ke d e xce pt t he dr ive r’s do or. Th e of fi c e r t ri e d uns uc c e ssf

ull y to t a lk t o a

pp e lla nt, asking , “I s ever

y thing all rig ht? ” The office r tried twice to wake a ppellant bef

ore a ppellant awa

ken. Of fi c e r C la uc h d e sc ri be d ap pe lla

nt’ s phy sic a l app e ara

nc e a s “pr e tty dr oo py , h e a vy e y e lid s, re d e y e s” and st ated that appellant’ s movements wer e sl ow and uncoordinated. An odor of alcohol ema

nated4

from the Ta

urus. Appellant was a sked to g et out of the c ar. A t this poi nt, Office r Clauch state d that he wa s tr ying to c on fi rm that a

pp e lla nt wa s “ ok ay ,” be c a

us e a pp e lla nt w a s n ot r e sp on din g a t a ll t o the offic er’ s questions. Upon exi ting the T aurus, a ppellant’s movements we re u n balanc ed and
un c oo rd inate d. Th e re wa s a ur ine sta in o n a

pp e lla nt’ s p ants
. After appellant be g an to answe r some pre liminary q u es t ions, Office r Clauch ha d appellant attempt to perform some f ield sobriety

tests. The off

icer later told the trial c ourt that he dec ided t o arrest appe llant for drivingwhile intox icated be cause appellant told him that he (a pp e lla nt ) h a d h a d a l o t t o dr i n k
. T h e r e w e r e o p e n w i n e b o t t l e s i n t h e b a c k s e a t o f t h e Taur us . Appellant’s pe rfor

mance on the field sobriety tests was poor, and he had red ey es, slurre d speec h, and an e x tremely

strong odor of a lcohol on his breath. When a sked whether

appellant a

nswere d any

questions or made a

ny statements to the office r duringthe re ading of the Miranda wa rn ing s, Of

fi c e r C la uc h r e pli e d, “ No ma ’a

m, h e jus t to ld me I love y ou and I ’m sorry .”

At the conc lusion of the pretrial hear ing on D ece mber 4, 2006, the tria l court took the matter under advisement, asking the parties to provide a dditional lega l authority . On Marc h 1, 2007, the trial cour

t overrule d the suppression motions. No findings of fac t or conc lusions of law
wer e filed. I n his sole point of error , appellant c omplains that the trial court e rre d in overruling the motions to suppress ev i d en ce “b eca use there was a

detention and not a me re e ncounter .” Appar ently , appellant means that his de tention w as without a rea sonable suspicion of involvement i nc r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y.5 STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Gene rally , we r eview a

trial court’ s ruling on a

motion to s uppress e vidence for a n abuse of discretion. Dy ar

v . S tate , 125 S.W .3d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We view a tria l court’s r uling on a suppression m otion under a bifurc ated standa rd of r eview. Car

mo uc hev . S

tate , 10 S.W. 3d 32 3, 32 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Gu zm an v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In our re view, we do not eng ag e in our own f actua l r ev iew. Ro me ro v . S tate , 800 S.W .2d 53 9, 54 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Th e tr ia l ju dg e is the so le tr ie r o f f a c t and jud g e of the c re dib ili ty
o f th e w it n e s s e s an d th e w e ig h t to b e g iv e n th e ir te s ti mony . St at e v. Ross , 32 S.W .3d 853, 855 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 00 ); Sta te v . B all ar d , 987 S.W .2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). There fore , we g ive almost total defe renc e to the trial court’s ruling s on historical fac ts as well as application-oflaw-to-f act que stions that turn on an evaluation of cre dibili t y an d demea nor. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 68 S.W. 3 d 6 4 4 , 6 5 2

- 5 3 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 2 0 0 2 )
. Wh e n , h o w e v e r , th e tr ia l c o u rt r u le s on mix ed questions of law a

nd fac t that do not depend on the cre dibilit y and deme anor of

witnesses, we revie w its ru lin g s de novo
. Id
. Questions of proba ble ca use and r easona

ble suspicion are revie wed de novo
. Se e W ie dev . S tate , 2 14 S.W. 3d

17 , 2 4- 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Fran k s v . S tate , 241 S.W .3d 135, 140-41 (Te x . App.—Austin 2007, pet. ref ’d). When, as here , the trial cour t does n o t enter f

indings of f

act or conclusions of law , we view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s ruling a nd assume that the tria l
c o u rt m a d e im

p li c it f in d in g s o f

f a c t t h a t s u p p o rt i ts r u li n g s o lo n g a s th o s e f

in d in g s ar e s upported by the re cord. W

iede , 2 14 S.W. 3d

a t 25 ; Ro ss , 3 2 S. W.3 d at 85 5; Ca rm ouche , 10 S.W .3d at 328. I f the ruling on the suppression motion is rea sonably supported by the rec ord and is c orre ct under6

any theory of the lawapplicable to the case , the ruling will be upheld. State v. Stee lman , 93 S.W .3d 10 2, 10 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Ro me ro , 8 00 S.W. 2d a t 54 3; Franks , 241 S.W .3d at 141. The re al suppression issue her e is the initial contact be tween O ffice r Clauch a nd appel la n t. T h e qu e s ti o no f

w h e th e r a g iv e ns e t o f

h is to r ic a l f

a c ts a mo u n t t o a

c o n s e n s u a l p o lic ecitizen encounter or a de tention [ and seizure] under the F ourth Amendment is subject to de novo
re vie w b e c a

us e that is an is su e of law— the a pp lic a tio n of le g a l pr inc ipl e s to a sp e c if ic se t of fa c ts. Sta te v . G ar c ia- Can tu , Nos. PD-0936-07 & PD-0937-07, 2008 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 581 at *11 (Tex. Crim. App. May

7, 2008).
THREE CATEGORIES OF INTERACTIONS Both the F ourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I , section 9 of the Te x as Co n s t i t u t ion protect individuals from unre asonable sear ches a nd seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. I V; Tex. Cons t. art. 1, § 9. Appe llant here make s n o claim that the Te x as
c on sti tut ion a l pr ov isi on

a ff or ds him g re a te r p ro te c tio n th an it s f e de ra l c on sti tut ion a l c ounte rpar t. There fore , we tre at them jointly as providing the same pr otection. See J oh ns on v . S

tate , 912 S.W .2d 227, 233-34 (Te x . Crim. App. 1995).

The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls has rec og nized the following three cate g ories of int e ra c tio ns be tw e e n p oli c e of fi c e rs a nd cit izens : ( 1) e nc ounte rs , ( 2) inv e sti g a tiv e de te nti on s, and (3) arr ests. S

ta tev . P erez , 85 S. W.3 d 8 17 , 8 19 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ); Fran c is v . S tate , 92 2 S. W.2 d 1 76 , 1 78 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ); S ta te v. Bryant , 161 S.W .3d 758, 761 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2005, no pet.).7 For an arrest to be justified under the Four th Amendment, it must be acc ompanied b y p ro b ab l e cause to believe that a person ha s eng ag ed in or is eng ag ing in c riminal activity
. See Henry v. United States , 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959). A person is a rre sted when his liberty

of movement is restricted or

restra ined by

an off icer or by a per son executing a

war ran t o f arrest or ar

resting wi tho ut a warr ant. Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann . a rt . 1 5. 22 (We st 2 00 5) ; Me dfo rd v . S tate , 13 S.W .3d 769, 772-73 (Te x . Crim. App. 2000). The c onstitut ion is invoked only when the “enc ounter” rises to the level of the seizure of a person. Mc Cra w v . S

tate , 1 17 S.W. 3d

47 , 5 1 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 20 03 , p e t. r e f’ d) . B oth

arr e sts and

te mpo ra ry inv e sti g a tive de te nti on s invo lve se izur e s w ith ou t a brig ht-line distinction between them. J os e yv . S tate , 981 S.W .2d 831, 839 (Tex
. Ap p .—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1998, pet. ref

’d). Sometimes the distinction is a matter of deg ree and involves diffe rent fac tors. McCraw , 117 S.W .3d at 52.

A detention may

be justified on circ umstances less than pr obable cause. Ga rza
v . Stat e , 77 1 S.W.2 d 5 49 , 5 58 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); Bryant , 1 61 S.W. 3d a t 76 0. A s top is de e med an inve sti g a tiv e de te nti on wh e n a law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r d e ta ins a

pe rs on re a so na bly suspected of

criminal ac tivity

to determine th e per son’s identity or to momentarily

maintain the status quo to g arne r more inf ormation. Se e Ho ag

v . S tate , 728 S.W .2d 375, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 87 ). A t e mpo ra

ry de te nti on is jus tif

ie d whe n the de ta ini ng of fi c e r ha s spe c if

ic , a rt ic ula ble fa c ts which, take n toge ther with rational infere nces f rom other f

acts, lea d him to concl u de the pe rson detained is, ha s been, or soon will be enga g ed in criminal activity
. Te rry v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1 96 8) ; Fo rd

v . S tate , 1 58 S.W. 3d

48 8, 49 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); W oods v. Sta te , 956 S.W .2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 7 ). The fa cts must amount to more than a mer e hunch or suspicion.8

Da v is v . S

tate , 947 S.W .2d 240, 244 (T ex . C ri m . App. 1997). An inve stigative detention occ urs when an individual is confronted by a police of

fice r, yields to the office r’s display of authority

and is temporarily

det ai ned for

the purpose of

investigation. Johnson , 912 S.W .2d at 235. Whether
re a so na ble su sp ic ion

e xists is d e te rm ine d b y

c on sid e ri ngthe fa c ts kn ow n to the of fi c e r a t th e tim e
o f th e d e te n tion. Te rry , 39 2 U .S. a t 21 -2 2; Franks , 241 S.W .3d at 141. A re asonable suspicion deter mination is made by considering the totality of the circ umstances. Fo rd , 158 S.W .3d at 492-93. An investig ative dete ntion must last no longe r than ne cessa ry to effe ctuate the purpose of the stop and must involve actua l inve stigation. Ak ins v . S tate , 2 02 S.W. 3d

87 9, 88 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2006, pet. re f’d)
.

Detentions ar e distinct from enc ounters. Enc ount ers are c onsensual intera ctions be tw e e n c iti zen s and

po lic e tha

t do no t r e qu ir e re a so na ble su sp ic ion and

do no t im

pli c a te constitutional rights. S

e e F lo r id a v . R o yer , 46 0 U.S . 4 91 , 4 97 -9 8 ( 19 83 ); Franks , 241 S.W .3d
a t 14 1. An enc ounte rs oc c ur s w he n a po lic e of fi c e r a pp ro a c he s an in div idu a l in a pu bli c pla c e to ask que sti on s, re qu e st i de nti fi c a tio n o r r e qu e st c on se nt t o s e arc h a s lo nga s th e int e ra c tio n is
c on se ns ua l—t

hat is , a s lo nga s the off icer do e s n ot c on ve y

a me ssa g e that c omp lia

nc e wi th the officer’ s reque st is required. Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). Enc ounters do not require any

justification on the part of a n office r. Ha rp e r v . S

tate , 217 S.W .3d 672, 674 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007, no pet.). Enc ounters ar e conse nsual if a “re asonable person would f eel fre e to disreg ard the police and g o about his business.” Cal ifo rn ia v . H od ar i D ., 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1 99 1) ; se e als o H

un te r v . S tate , 9 55 S .W .2 d 10 2, 10 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ) ( an e nc ounte r i s a
consensua l interac tion which the citizen is fre e to terminate at any time). There fore , an enc ounter9

is not considered a

seizure for F ourth Amendment pu rp o s es and does not wa rra nt constituti onal analy sis. Hunter , 9 55 S.W. 2d a t 10 4; Mc Cra w v . S

tate , 117 S.W .3d at 51. “[E]ncounters betwe en citizens and police off

icer s are incre dibly

rich in diversity .” Ga rc ia- Can tu , 2008 Tex. Crim. App. L E XIS 5 8 1 at * 1 2 (q u o t i n g Te rry , 392 U.S. at 13).

I n State v. Bryant , 161 S.W .3d at 762, it wa s held that a police offic er wa s n ot require d to have r easona

ble suspicion that a defe ndant was eng ag ed in c riminal activity to approa ch the def endant’ s car

and knock on the window. The inter action did not b ec ome an investig ative de te nti on un til a ft e r t

he de fe nd ant ope ne d his ca r doo r a nd the of fi c e r s me lle d th e od or

of a lc oh ol. I n Me rid e th v . S tate , a po lic e of

fi c e r ap pr oa c he d a par

ke d tru c k in w hic h M e ri de th a nd his fe ma le companion we re sitting. 603 S.W .2d 872, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Unable to see throug h the
rea r window, the of

fice r we nt to the driver ’s door a nd knocked on the window. Id . Wh e n M e ri de th opened the d o o r, t h e off

icer smelled marihuana

smoke and saw

a hand- rolled cig are tte butt in the ashtray
. Id . I t was held that the inter action did not be come an investigative detention until the office r discovere d the marihua

na. Id
. I n Perez , 85 S.W .3d at 818, a police office r re ceived a theft report fr om the dispatcher , drove nor

th until he spotted Perez, and slowed his police vehicle to de termine if Per ez matched the suspect’s de scription as g iven. When Per ez obse rved the offic er lookingat him, he ra n into a near by apar tment. The off

icer knocked on the apar

tment door, Perez answe red, a nd the offic er smelled the odor of m ar i huana. T he Court of Criminal Appea ls held that until t hat point, the interac tion was a c onsensual enc ounter, not an inve stigative detention. Id . at 81 9; se e als o S tate10

v . Ca rra nz a , 1 62 S.W. 3d 40 7, 40 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 2 00 5, pe t. r e f’ d) (o ff ic e r n ot r e qu ir e d to have r easona

ble suspicion to knock on a hotel door ). I n Ga rc ia- Can tu , 2008 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 581 at *15-16, the cour t stated:
Pol ic e of fi c e rs are a s f

re e a s any oth e r ci tize n to knoc k on some on e ’s do or and a sk to talk with them, to approac h citizens on the street o r i n t h ei r cars and to ask for information or their c ooperation. Police office rs m ay be as ag g ressive as the pushy Fuller -brush man at the front door, the insistent panhan d l er on the street, or the g rimacing street- corne r car-w indow squeeg ee ma n. All of these soc ial interac tions may i n v o l v e embar

rassment a

nd inconvenienc e, but they do not involve official c oe rc ion . I t is on ly wh e n the po lic e of fi c e r “ e ng a g e s in c on du c t w hic h a re a so na ble man w ou ld v ie w a s thre a te nin g or of fe ns ive e ve n if

pe rf or me d b y ano the r p ri vate citizen,” [t hat] such an encounte r become [s] a seizure. I t is the display o f o ff i ci al authority and the implication that this authority cannot be ignor ed, avoide d, or te rm inate d, that r e su lts in a F ourt h A me ndme nt s e izur e . A t bo tto m, t he i ss ue is whether the surrounding s and the wor ds or ac tions of t he officer and his associate s communicate the messag e of “ We Who M ust Be O bey ed.” (citations omitted). I n Ga rc ia- Can tu , the Tex as C ourt of C riminal Appea ls discussed the distinction betwee n an enc ounter a

nd an investig ative dete ntion. Under the t otality of the c ircumstance s, the court c oncluded that ther e wa s an investig ative dete ntion and a seizure r ather than a mer e enc ounter. Id . at *19-24.
CO NC LU SION

I n the i n s tant case , the evidenc e shows an e ncounter betwee n the offic er a

nd appellant wh ic h, a s th e fa c ts d e ve lop e d, be c a me a te mpo ra ry inv e sti g a tiv e de te nti on

and late r e sc a late d in to
an ar rest of a ppellant base d on probable cause . The fa cts do not need to be reiter ated. Viewingthe totality

of the c ircumstance s in the light most f avora ble to the trial
c ourt ’s ru lin g , w e c on c lud e tha t th e tr ia l cou

rt did no t a

bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingthe mot ion

to11

suppress by

finding that the initial conta ct betwee n the office r and appellant was an encounte r. The only issue befor e us wa s the leg ality of the initial contac t. The sole point of er ror is over

ruled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

J ohn F. Onion, Jr., J ustice Be fore J ustices Pemberton, Waldrop and O nion* Affir med Filed: June 26, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh

* Be fore J ohn F. Onion, J r., Presiding J udg e (re tired), Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assig nment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) ( West 2005).