### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 58 -C R

______________________________ MI CHAEL

J ENKI NS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 35619-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issAcc ording to Broc k' s vehicle- based vide o rec ording , at about 10 : 2 8 p . m . November 15, 1 2 0 0 6 , B r o c k

s t o p p e d t h e v e h i c l e dr i v e n b y J e n k i n s f o r t r a v e l i n g s e v e n t y m i l e s p e r h o u r i na s i x t yfive-mile- per- hour spee d zone. At about 10:43, Broc k issued J enkins a wa rning for spe eding and reque sted consent to sea

rch the vehicle. A

bout 10:45, J enkins ref

used to consent to a se arc h. Acc ording to the video, the drug dog first sniffed at J enkins' vehicle at about 11:13 p.m. and 2 aler ted shortly

there afte r. A sea rch of the vehicle discovere d 2,999 Hy drocodone pills and severa l soda bottles 3 containing liquid C odeine. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON After Michae l J enkins' vehicle w as lawf ully stopped by

Texas State T rooper

Christopher B ro c k a nd a fe llow off

ice r, and a ft e r Je nk ins wa s g ive n a wa rn ingfo r s pe e din g and

re fu se d h is

c on se nt f or of fi c e rs to s e arc h th e ve hic le , o ff ic e rs imm e diate ly

re qu e ste d a

dr ug do g . Jenk ins '

1 extended detention—beyond the initial spee ding investigation a nd decision to iss u e a war ning only —lasted appr ox imately

thirty minutes before the dog arr ived on the sce ne, sniffe d the exterior 2 of the ve hicle, and a lerted, sug g esting to office rs the pre sence of nar cotics inside. 3 Once J enkins' pretria l motion t o suppress the e vidence resulting fro m the detention was

overr uled, J enkins pled g uilty to posse ssion of a controlled substance and wa s sentence d to twelve y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. On appe al, J enkins attac ks the denial of his mot ion to suppress and a sserts fa ilure to consider the fu ll ra ng e of ava ila

ble punis hme nt. B e c a

us e the of fi c e rs la c ke d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

of Jenk ins '

c ri min a l a c tiv ity

to j us tif y his e xten de d d e te nti on , th e c on tr oll e d su bs tanc e s, fo un d o nly

a s th e re su lt of that dete ntion, must be excluded fr om evidence . We, theref ore, r ever se Jenkins' convic tion."A rou ti ne traff ic s to p res emb les an i nv est igat iv e det ent io n. " State v. Cardenas , 36 S.W .3d 4 24 3, 24 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 20 01 , pe t. re f' d)

. A law e nf or c e me nt of

fi c e r m ay lawf ull y stop and detain a

person f or a tra ffic violation committed in the presence of the off icer

. Garcia v. Sta te , 8 27 S.W. 2d

93 7, 94 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Z ervo s v. Stat e , 1 5 S. W. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 1 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2000, pet. re f' d). No doubt, B rock had rea sonable suspicion to make the initial s t o p o f J en k i n s fo r s p ee d i n g. 3 Jenk ins do e s n ot c ha lle ng e the ini tia l det e nti on fo r spe e din g . I ns te a d, Jenk ins argue s b oth 4 that B ro c k la c ke d re a so na ble su sp ic ion to de ta in him fu rt he r, a ft e r the ini tia l pu

rp os e fo r t

he tr a ff ic sto p h a d b e e n a c c omp lis he d a nd that th e le ng th o f t

he e xten de d d e te nti on wa s unre a so na ble . Wh ile a police of

fice r may reque st consent to sear ch a ve hicle af ter the purpose of a traff

ic stop ha s been

acc omplished, the police off icer must have re asonable suspicion of some cr iminal activity to further detain the oc cupants or ve hicle if c onsent is refuse d. Carawa yv . S tate , 2 5 5 S. W. 3 d

3 0 2 , 3 1 0 ( T e x. Ap p. —E a stl and

20 08 , n o p e t.) ; Sp igh t v . S tate , 76 S.W .3d 761, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 20 02 , n o p e t.) ; Le ac h v . S tate , 3 5 S. W.3 d 2 32 , 2 36 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 00 , n o p e t.) ; Simpson v. Sta te , 29 S.W .3d 324, 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, pet. ref ' d). At issue here is that extended detention. W e r ev i ew t h e t ri al co u r t ' s d ec i s i o no na m o t i o nt o s u p p re s s ev i d en ce b y

ap p l yi n g a bifurca ted standar d of re view def erri ng to the trial court' s determination of historica l fac ts that depend on cre dibilit y , but review ing de novo the trial cour t's a pplication of the law

. W

ie dev . S tate , 21 4 S. W.3 d 1 7, 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); se e Gu zm an v . S tate , 95 5 S.W. 2d 85 , 89 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1997). The trial court' s evidentiary ruling "w i ll be upheld on appe al if it is corre ct on any th eory of l aw t hat fi nd s s up po rtin th e reco rd. " Go nz ale z v . S tate , 195 S.W. 3d 11 4, 12 6 ( Te x. Cr im.4

Ap p. 20 06 ); se e Ro me ro v . S tate , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Gene rally , afte r g ranting defe ren ce t o the trial cour t's de termination of historical f acts, we revie w de novo deter minations of rea sonable suspicion and pr obable c ause. Guzman , 955 S.W .2d at 87. Under Te rry

v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and its prog eny , the police must be a ble " to point to specific a

nd articula

ble fa cts which, take n toge ther with ration al i n fe renc es fr om those fac ts," support a re asonable suspicion that t h e s u s pect is eng ag ing in, or is about to eng ag e in, cr iminal activity

. United States v. Sok olow , 4 90 U. S. 1 , 1 0 ( 19 89 ); Da v is v . S tate , 9 4 7 S. W. 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1997). " The be havior o f t h e s uspect ne ed not sug g est the commission of a par ticular off ens e; a ny su ffi cie nt ly su sp ici ou s crim in al acti vi ty may ju st if y a st op ." Hi ll v . S

tate , 951 S.W .2d 244, 247 (Tex. App.— Ho u s t o n [ 1 4 t h Dist.] 1997, no pet.). He re, a g ain, we do not c onsider the ob vio us ly va lid ini tia l st op , b ut Je nk ins ' e xten de d d e te nti on a ft e r of fi c e rs de c ide d to issu e him on ly

a wa rning for the initial offe nse, spee ding, that warr anted his initial stop. Te rry established a two- p ro n ged test for investig ative dete ntions. To determine the

rea sonablene ss of an investig ative dete ntion, the court must inquire: "( 1) whe ther the of fice r' s action was justified at its inception; and, (2) whether it was reasona bly related i n scope to the circumstanc es

w h i ch j us ti fi ed t he i nt erfere nce i n t he fi rst pl ace." Da v is , 947 S.W .2d at 242 (quoting Te rry , 392 U.S. at 19–20). Unde r the fir st prong of Te rry , " the po lic e of fi c e r mus t be a

ble to p oin t to sp e c if

ic

and art ic ula

ble fa c ts wh ic h, take n tog e the r wi th ratio na l inf e re nc e s fr om tho se fa c ts, re a so na bly

warra nt th at i nt rus io n. " Da v is , 9 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d at 2 4 2 (q u o t i n g Te rry , 392 U.S. at 21).Many of t he specific, articulable facts refer ence d by Br ock ar e " as consistent with innocent 5 a s w ithc ri min a l a c tiv ity ." As thi s Co ur t ha s n ote d in

the pa st, the Te xas Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls has abandoned the "a s consistent with innocent activity as with criminal ac tivity " te st. See Carter v . S tat e , 1 50 S.W. 3d

23 0, 23 6 n .3 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; se e als o Cu rti s v. S tate , 238 S.W .3d 376, 378 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); W oo ds v . S tate , 956 S.W .2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 97 ). " Th e po ssi bil ity

of an inno c e nt e xplanatio n d oe s n ot d e pr ive the of fi c e r o f t he c a

pa c ity to ent ert ain reas on abl e su sp ici on of cr im in al c on du ct. " Cur tis , 2 3 8 S

. W

. 3 d at 3 7 9 (q u o t i n g W oods , 956 S.W .2d at 37). 5 Th e fa c ts s up po rt ingre a so na ble su sp ic ion

mus t be c on sid e re d in

the c on te xt o f t

he " tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s" be c a us e " fa c ts that do no t sh owre a so na ble su sp ic ion

in i so latio n ma

y do so whe n co mb in ed w it h o th er fact s. " Loe sc h v . S tate , 958 S.W .2d 830, 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Whil e none of

the fa cts testified to by Br ock would be suff icient to cre ate r easona

ble suspicion for the extended detention, if considered a lone, the question befor e us is whether the fa cts are sufficie nt 5 when c onsidered tog ether

. I n his testimony , Br ock ar ticulated thre e main fa cts ca using his suspicion and the extended detention: that J enkins was " extremely nervous," that J enkins denied ha ving a criminal history , and that the route Jenkins claimed to have taken wa s not the most direct route be tween H untsvill e and L ong view. To support the cate g orization of J enkins' nervousne ss, B rock testified J enkins ref used to make eye conta ct, J enkins' voice was "r eal shaky ," and "it's not that ordinary for someone to be that nervous." Br ock also c onducted a criminal backg round chec k of Jenkins' driver ' s license a nd "disc overe d he' d been ha

ndled bef ore f or nar cotics vi olations." Broc k testified that, when he asked Jenk ins wh e the r " he ' d e ve r be e n arr e ste d, " Jenk ins " state d n o, he ' d n e ve r b e e n a rr e ste d. " B ro c k a lso testified that the route J enkins claimed to be taking seeme d suspicio u s . J enkins claimed to beAl tho ug h Jenkin s' te sti mony c on tr a dic te d p or

tions of B ro c k' s a c c ount, we are re qu ir e d to 6 defe r to the trial cour

t's f actua l find i n gs , except as to appropr iate cor rec tions from the video evidenc e. J enkins testified hi s voice was shaky beca use of the c old and the wind. Jenkins admitt ed he did not tell Broc k about beingplace d on defe rre d adjudication for possession of coca ine, but claimed he did tell Broc k he had be en convic ted for possession of marihuana and cr iminal mis chief

. J enkins testified he " would have mentioned [t he def err ed adjudication] but [ Br ock] cut me off a nd started talkingto me." J enkins also claimed he told Broc k he traveled throug h Crockett, not Canton. J enkins denied te lling Br ock he had trave led throug h Canton. When a sked if Canton was " way out of y our wa

y ," Jenk ins a g re e d. Th e tr ia l c ourt c ou ld re a so na bly be lie ve B ro c k' s ve rs ion of the e ve nts over Jenkins' ve rsion. 6 tr a ve lin g fr om H un tsv ill e to G ilm e r w itha pla nn e d in te rm e diate sto p in L on g vie w. Ac c or ding to B ro c k, Jenk ins c la ime d to have tr a ve le d H ig hw ay 19 thr ou g h Ca

nto n a nd the n to have tur

ne d e a st onto I nterstate 20. B rock be lieved ther e we re more direc t routes for the descr ibed t rip and testified that he dis c us se d th e a lte rn a tiv e s w ithJenk ins

. 6 Some of that testimony is unde rmined by the video evidenc e. The Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls has held the " almost total defer ence " sta ndard of revie w continues to apply even when the "de termination is based on a videotape r ecor ding a dmitted into evidence at a suppre ssion hearing ." Mo nta ne z v . S tate , 195 S.W .3d 101, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (re jecting sug g estion in Carmouche

v . S tat e , 1 0 S. W.3 d 3 23 , 3 32 (T e x. Cr im. App

. 2000 ), that de fe re nti a l r e vie w s ho uld no t a pp ly to vid e os be c a

us e re vie w do e s no t de pe nd on e va luatio n of c re dib ili ty

and de me ano r) ; see Ex parte Van Alstyne , 239 S.W .3d 815, 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). The cour t, thou gh , n o t ed "[ u ]nder the appropr iate cir cumstance s, a video re cordingcan be evidence of a compe lling natur e that re quires th at w e di sco un t t est im on y th at c on fl ict s w it h t he re cord in g." Van Alstyne , 239 S.W .3d at 825.7

We a re fo rc e d to c on c lud e B ro c k d id n ot h ave re a so na ble su sp ic ion

to e xten d Jenkin s' de te nti on a ft e r c on c lud ingthe tr a ff ic sto p inve sti g a tio n. We r e a c h th is res ul t bec a us e the fa c ts articulated by

the offic ers to justify

the suspicion of Jenkins are either marg inal or unwarra nted. And tho se that w e vie w a s ma rg ina l, e ve n if

vie we d at f

ull str e ng th a

nd tog e the r, are i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o support rea sonable suspicion to war rant the e x tended de tention. After car efully revie wing the video, we fi n d t h at i t compels us to reje ct the testimony that J enkins denied ha

ving a ny criminal history . The video of the events is clea r t hat J enkins admitted to h a vin g a

c ri min a l r e c or d, wh ic h r e fute s Br oc k' s tes tim ony that he d e nie d h a vin g a re c or d. Whil e J enkins did not itemiz e all offe nses, he was not specifica lly asked to itemize them. He wa s asked first whethe r he had ever been arr ested, to which he answe red, " Yea h, Ihave." The ne x t question

was what he had been arr ested for. He answe red by starting to list some items be fore t h e officer continued the dialogue about other things. The video does not show any eff ort by the offic ers to g et from Jenkins an exhausti ve l i s t of his offe nses. B ased on the way the inquiries wer e made and responde d to, we fa il to see the re asonable suspicion this suppl ies to the situation. We a lso fi nd

that th e vid e o e vid e nc e is c omp e lli ngto r e fute a t least pa rt of the ro ute d i s cu s s i o n . Br o ckt es t i fi edt h at J en k i n s cl ai m edt o h av e t ra v el edu p S t at e H i g h w ay

1 9 t h ro u gh Canton befor e taking I -20 east toward L ong view. Trave ling throug h Canton would cer tainly be out of Jenkins' prof

essed way . But the video evidenc e is clear and compe lling that, bef

ore the speedingF ro m th e vid e o, the e nd of the sp e e din g inv e sti g a tio n c an be e a sil y de te rm ine d. Af te r b ri e fl y 7 returningto the office rs' vehicle to chec k J enkins' criminal history over the radio, B rock w alked ba ck to J enkins, writing something on his clipboar d and telling J enkins that he wa s being issued a wa rning fo r s pe e din g . Imme diate ly a ft e r t hat, Je nk ins wa s a sk e d fo r, and refuse d, c on se nt t o s e arc h h is vehicle. Approxim ately

five minutes af

ter the dr ug dog was requested by

office rs, J enkins informed 8 Br o ck t h at h e ha d t ra v el ed o n Hi gh wa y 1 9

. W e f i n d n o re fe re n ce t o C an t o no nt h e v i d eo , al t h o u gh the re are sp ots —a ft e r c on c lus ion of the sp e e din g inv e sti g a tio n— wh e re the vid e o eithe r ski ps or is inaudible. J enkins claims to have told B rock he trave led throug h Crockett, not Canton. Perusing a s t an d ar d

T ex as h i gh wa y

m ap , o n e c an s ee a q u i t e r ea s o n a b l e ro u t e f ro m Hu n t s v i l l e, t h ro u gh Crockett, lea ding to L ong view—par t of which route uses Hig hway 19. 8 investigation was completed and the e x tended de tention was begun, J enkins was involved in no 7 discussion mentioning Hig hway 19 or Canton. There fore , the office rs could not have lea rned f rom 8 Je n k i n s an y

t h i n g a b o u t H i g h w ay 1 9 o r C an t o n u n t i l a f t e r t h e y h a d e xt e n d e d t h e d e t e n t i o n. F a c ts

cre ating rea sonable suspicion which a re a cquire d by

the police a fter the challenge d detention has beg un cannot justify the (her e, extended) detention at its outset. St

. Geo rg e v . S tate , 237 S.W .3d 720, 726 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I n St. George , the def endant g ave a false name to the police, but police did not discover the name was false until af ter the detention had begun. Id . The c ourt cited Te rry for th e pro po si ti on th at "an off ice r's acti on s m us t b e ju st if ied at i ts in cept io n. " Id . The c ourt held t hat " g iving a

false na me when of

fice rs did not know it was false could not g ive them

reas on abl e su sp ici on to in ves ti gate fu rt her. " Id

. What is le ft

of the ro ute dis c us sio n a s pos si bl e su ppor t f or re a so na ble su sp ic ion

is a dif fe re nc e of op ini on a

bo ut wh ic h ro ute fr om Hunts vil le to L on g vie w wa s b e tte r, a mor e we ste rl yViewingthe video, we are arme d with en o u gh i n fo rm ation to determine that, if J enkins 9 d i s p l aye d n e r

v o u s n e s s , h e d i d n o td i s p l ay extre me nervousne ss. The video is clea r enoug h to show that J enkins was not fidg eting , g esturing , or otherw ise moving in a nervous manne r. On the othe r ha nd , B ro c k te sti fi e d that Jen kin s avo ide d e y e c on ta c t and ha d a sh a ky vo ic e , e le me nts no t c le arl y ref uted by the video. 9 ro ute pr of e sse d b y Jenk ins —w hic h may be be tte r sup po rt e d by Hunts vil le ' s lo c a tio n to the no rt hw e st of Houston—or the more easte rly route pre fer

red by Br ock. Wh il e the video does not re veal a ny excessive or obvious ner

vousness from Jenkins, we defe r to t he te sti mony

that Jen kin s d isp lay e d n e rv ou sn e ss i n h is v oic e and his fa ilure to make e y e c on ta c t, elements not cle arly ref

uted by the vi deo. Thus, we a re le ft with only

J enkins' asser

tedly suspicious 9

ro ute and ne rv ou sn e ss a s sp e c if

ic , a rt icu lab le f

a c ts w hic h ma

y have g ive n r ise to r e a so na ble suspicion, and thus may

have a uthorized the ext ended de tention. Ner vousness, conflicting statements of the occupants, and denial of prior drugarr ests can be sufficie nt to warra

nt further detention. Se e Po we ll v . S tate , 5 S. W. 3 d

3 6 9 , 3 7 8

– 7 9 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana 1 9 9 9 , p et . ref ' d). He re, ha

ving only one occ upant, there are no conflicting statements of oc cupants. Plus, we have alre ady noted J enkins' admission to at least some cr iminal his tor y . N on e the le ss, " [n]e rv ou s, e va siv e be havio r is a per tin e nt f a c tor in d e te rm ini ngre a so na

ble

su sp ici on ." Illinois v. W

ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000). Ne rvousness al o n e, howe ver, is not sufficie nt to just ify

detention. St. George , 237 S.W .3d at 726. So what we a

re le ft with is a questioned (a lleg edly less than optimal ) ro u t e an d a ner vous ind ivi du a l. Th e pa

rt ie s hav e no t cite d to us any c a se that f ind s r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

ba se d o n th os e10

tw o f a c tor s a lon e . T hu s, we c on c lud e of fi c e rs did no t have re a so na ble su sp ic ion

to e xten d Jenkin s' detention. We sustain this poi nt of err or and, ther efor e, re verse the judg ment of the trial c ourt and

re mand thi s c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.

J o s h R

. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 2, 2009 Date D ecide d: J anuar y 16, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh