### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00618-CR

Leroy Jones , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 001879, H ONORABLE TOM BLACKWE LL, JUDGE PRESIDING
A j ury con vi cte d a ppe l l an t Leroy Jon es of pos se ss i on of

l es s th an one gra m of co caine and assess ed puni shm

ent, enhan

ced by prior fel ony c onvictions, at

fif t een yea rs’ co nfinement in t he Tex as D epartm

en t of Cri m i na l Justic e In sti

tution al Di vision. See Te x. H ealt h & Sa fet y Cod e Ann. § 481.115 (West Sup p. 200 2) ; Te x. P enal Co de Ann. § 12 .4 2 ( West Su pp. 200 2) . O n app eal, he
co nt en ds t he dis t r ict co ur t er r ed in d en ying his mo t io n t o su pp r es s. We will a ffir m.

Au st in Police Of

fi cer Paul K aderli testifi ed that at about 8:00 p.m. on Novem ber 2, 1999, he was ri

din g a bicy cl e on duty i

n the Si xth Street ar ea , as sis t ed by an o t he run ifo rmed bic ycle off i cer. Kaderl

i rece iv ed ove r his r adio t he de scr ipt ion o f a sus pec t in an unde rc ove r d ru g buy. The suspect was descri

bed as a b lac k ma le w ea r ing blu e je an s, a b lue sw ea t shir t , an d a blu e b as eb all cap, last se en wal ki n g down a p edestrian

un derp as s to Wal

le r Creek; Ka

derli was gi ve n n o i nf orm ati on about the suspect’s possi

ble age, hei

ght, weigh

t, co mpl exi on, or faci al

hai r. Kaderli a

nd hi s partner entered t he pe des t rian t unnel and saw a bl ack m an weari ng a b lue sweatshi rt, dar k je ans, an

d a dark2

ba se ba ll ca p; Ka de r li

ide ntif ie d Jones as that m

an. Jones was about half a s treet width a

way , he was facing awa y from Kad er li, andhi s han ds were i n f ront o f h im . Kaderl i c ould not see what, i f an

ythi ng, Jones was holdi

ng, but he did not see anythi ng sticki ng out of Jones’s clot hes. Ka de r li approac he d Jones f

rom b ehi nd;he did not thi

nk J ones kne w the off i cers were there un t il Kad er li sp o ke
. Ka de r li sa id “for my own pr ot ect ion I wanted t o see [Jo nes’s] han ds,” so he to ld J ones, “Poli

ce off ic er, show me y

our hands.” Jones

compl ie d and put o ut his han

ds, in whi ch he had a bra ss co ppe r p ipe and a r azo r blad e. Kade rli saw a whit e su bst ance on t he end of the c rack pipe
. He said, “I wasn ’t necessa ril y i n f ear of m y own saf ety, but I was making su re t hat I w as g oing to be saf e. That’s why

I asked to see hi s han d.” Whe n asked whet her safet y was t he so le rea so n he ask ed to see Jone s’ s hands, K

aderl i repl i ed, No, I wa s ob servi

ng of f i cer s af ety . I w asn’ t i

n f ea r f orm y own saf ety. I was obs er ving what they

taught us in

the academ

y, that his f

eet or m outh or h ead i s n

ot go ingt o kill y o u, so me thin g in hi s han ds will . So t hat’s wh

at I was doing, I was observi ng off ic er saf ety practic e. Kade rli te st ifi

ed t hat when he app ro ache d Jo nes, he co uld no t t ell whet her Jo nes ha d a w eap on. Jones contends that t he cocai ne was s eized as a resul

t o f an illeg al Terry sea

rch
. See Terryv. Ohio , 392 U .S. 1 (1968) . He argu es that Kaderli’s s earch of hi s hand was n ot lawf ul b ecause Ka de r li t est ifi ed t hat he wa s no t afra id o f Jone s and t ha t he as ke d t o se e J o ne s’ s ha nd be ca us e o f his t r ain ing in off ic er saf ety. Jones contends

th at K aderl i l acke d s pe ci f i c, ar ti cul ab l e f ac ts s uf f i ci en t to
war ra nt a co nclusio n t hat Kade rli was in da nger and, t her efo re , t he evi dence was

il le gally sei zed and should have been

suppressed.3 In a suppres si

on hear ing, t he t rial co ur t is the sole trier of fact and judge of wi tness
cred i b i l i ty and the wei ght to be gi ven the testi

mony . Wood v. State , 18 S. W. 3d 64 2, 64 6 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 200 0); Greenv. State , 934 S. W.2 d 92 , 9 8 ( Te x. C rim App. 199 6) . I n co nsider inga tr ial cou rt ’s dec ision, we vie w the

evi den ce i n the l i ght m ost fa vorabl e to the trial

court’s rul i ng. Wood, 18 S.W.3d at 6 46. In

ge ne ral, we wi l l not revers e a

tri al cou rt’ s dec i si on on a m oti on t o s upp re ss abs ent a cl ear abuse of d i scre tion
. Wood

, 18 S.W.3d at 646. We af ford al most tot al deferen ce to t he trial
cou rt ’s det er minatio n of t he fact s, e spe cially when it dep ends on a n eva lua t io n o f cre di bi l i ty or dem ean or. State v. Ross , 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim . App. 2000). However, we revie w de novo the tri al court’s appl i cation of the l aw to the f

acts. Id. A police off ic er may st o p a nd br iefly

det ain a pe rso n for invest igat ive pur po ses if t he off i cer, in light o f hi s ex

peri ence, has a reasonab le suspici on supported by articul abl e fac ts that crim in al ac ti v i ty may b e af oot. Dow ler v. Sta te , 44 S.W .3d

66 6, 6 69 (Tex . A

pp .—A us ti n 20 01 , pe t. ref ’d). An off i cer m ay perf orm a s ea r ch fo rwe ap o ns if

he is just ifi

ed in believing a s usp ect might be armed. Terry , 39 2 U. S. at 27; O’Hara v . State , 27 S .W. 3d 5 48, 550 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 200 0) . T he off ic er need n ot be certai

n the suspe ct i s arm

ed; the q ues tion i s wh ethe r a rea son ab l y prude nt p ers on in the s ame circ umst ance s wo uld be w ar ra nt ed in a bel ie f that hi s saf ety or the saf

ety of others was i n da nge r. Terry , 39 2 U. S. at 27; O’Hara , 27 S.W .3d at 55 1. I nit iall y, we are not convinced that Kaderli’s aski ng to see Jones’s h

ands was a search under the F ourth A

mendm en t. See Maldon ado v. State , 85 3 S. W .2d 746 , 74 8 (T ex . A

pp. —H ous ton [1st Dis t . ] 19 93 , no pe t . ) ( ac t ing o n t ip that man fi tt in g defendant’s descri

ption was causing problem s, off ic er was j ustif

ie d in approachi

ng def enda nt, aski ng fo r ide nt ifi

cat ion, and r equ est ing “tha t he4

re move hi s han

ds f rom h i s pock ets”). However, even

under a Terryanal

ys is , Kaderl

i’ s request was j ustif i ed an d reas onab l e un

der the ci rcum stan ces of th i s en coun ter. The court of cri

mi nal appeal s has

ma de i t clear that an off

ic er’s f ai lure to testify

that he wa s a fr aid o f t he su sp ec t do es no t au t o mat ica lly i nval idate a pat- down search for weapo ns. O’Hara , 27 S.W.3d at 551. Fu r t he r , no t ev er y pa t - do wn se ar ch pe r fo rmed as a ma t t er o f r o ut ine will be overturn

ed au tomati cal l y . Id. at 5 54. Inst ead, we ask whethe r, under an

obj ecti ve anal y si s, a
r ea so na bly

ca ut io us pe r so n w o ul d b e ju st ifie d i n ma ki ng a p r ec au t io na ry se arch f or weap ons. Id. In just ify ingan of f i cer’ s i ntr us i on on an individual, t he o ffi

cer must be able t o p oint t o s pec ifi c and
ar t icu lab le fact s which, taken t oget her with rational i nf erences from those facts, re aso nably warr ant t he par t icular intr usio n. Terry , 392 U.S. at 21. When exa mini ng po lice sear ches and s eizur es, t he le vel of suspi ci on a poli

ce off ic er must po ssess v

aries dependi ng on the i

ntensi ty of the pol

ic e intr usio n. See Cr

ockett v . State , 80 3 S. W.2d 308 , 31 1 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 91) ; Davis v. State , 989 S.W.2 d 859, 8 62-63 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 99, pet. ref

’d). Here, Kaderli

sp otte d appella

nt, who matched a

suspect’s desc

ripti on, in an area known to Kaderl i f or “narcotics traff

ic kin g, narcotics sales street leve l, one or two r ocks at a ti me.” Jones concedes that Kaderl i “ mi ght have been

jus tif ie d in detain in g” Jones under tho se circum stances. Ka de r li co uld no t see whet her Jo ne s h eld a weapon in hi s hands, and when

asked if that w as a concern, Kade

rli answered, “ Sure.” Asked if h e was co ncer ned fo r his and his par t ner ’s sa fet y, he answered, “Yes. ” Kad er li said he wa s t ra ined t o be aw ar e o f wh at a s us pe ct he ld in hi s hands b ecause that is where an

y da nger wo uld lie. T he r eas on he was not in fear w as be cau se he was follow ing t he pr o pe rpr o ce du r e fo ren su r ing his saf ety . He did not t estify

that ask in

g to see Jones’s hands was a5

ma tt er of sheer rout in

e; he said he was e

nsuri ng h is safet y and o bser ving safet y pra ct ices. The intr us i on on Jones was s ign

if ic antly le ss than tha

t im posed by even the most cursory pat-down
we ap on se arc h. Jon eswa s s i m pl y as ke d to s how

his h an ds so t ha t t he o ffice r s c o uld be sure h e was not hold ing anything t hat co uld be use d as a we apo n. Vie win g t he fac t s o bje ct ive ly and ke ep ing in mi nd the l evel of poli ce int rus io n int o Jo ne s’ s c o nst it ut io na lly pr o t ec t ed int er es t s, we ho ld t hat t he dis trictcourtco uld ha ve fo un d t ha t a r ea so na ble off ic er in the sam e ci rcumstances would h

ave b een j us ti f i ed i n aski n g to s ee wh at, if anything, J one s held in his hands . T he district cour t did not a buse it s di screti

on i n d en y i ng Jon es ’s moti on to suppress. We

overrule Jone s’s issueon ap peal and af f i rm th e d i str i ct c our t’s j udgm en t.

__________________________________________

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Af fi rmed File d: January

25, 2002 Publish