12

- 15

- 00059

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS

DERRICK DEMOND COOKS Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause No. 241

- 1485

- 14

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUEST ED

Austin Reeve Jackson Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 0152 ACCEPTED 12-15-00059-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 6/15/2015 5:09:45 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Attorney for Appellant Appellate Couns el: Austin Reeve Jackson 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702
Trial Counsel: Don Davidson PO Box 1105 Tyler, TX 75710 Attorney for the State on Appeal
Michael J. West Assistant District Attorney, Smith County 4th Floor, Courthouse 100 North Broadw ay Tyler, TX 75702iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

................................ ................................ . ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ............................... iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ......................... iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE

................................ ................................ ....................... 2 ISSUE PRESENTED

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ............................. 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ............. 4 ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5

I. BECAUSE THE SEARCH OF MR. COOKS' POCKETS EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF ANY LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE SEARCH, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

................................ ................................ ............ 5

Standard of Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 Mr. Cooks Was Detained

................................ ................................ ............................ The Search Exceeded the Limited Scope Search Authorzied by Terry

.................... 8 There Was No Valid Consent to the Search

................................ ........................... 11

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

................................ ................................ .................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

................................ ................................ ..................... 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ ............ 14iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
Adams v. Williams
, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)

................................ .... 8
Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)

................................ 13

Katz v. United States
, 389 U.S. 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 88 S.Ct. 507 (1967)

................................ ...... 7 Kaupp v. Texas , 538 U.S. 626, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (2003)

................................ 12 Maryland v. Wilson
, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997)

................................ .... 6

Minnesota v. Dickerson
, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)

................................ 8, 9
Sibron v. New York
, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968)

................................ ...... 7 Terry v. Ohio
, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)

................................ ........ passim

FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL : United States v. Dalpiaz ,

494 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1974)

................................ ................................ ......... 11
United States v. Foust ,

461 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1972)

................................ ................................ ......... 11 United States v. Reyes ,

349 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2003)

................................ ................................ ......... 11v TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Amador v. State , 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)

................................ ........................ 5
Baldwin v. State , 278 S.W .3d 367 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009)

................................ ........................ 9
Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000)

................................ .......................... 6 , 11, 12

Davis v. State , 829 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)

................................ ........................ 10, 11
Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex.Cri m.App. 2005)

................................ ........................ 9
Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d 302 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012)

................................ ........................ 8 Lippert v. State , 664 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)

................................ ........................ 10
State v. Ibarra , 953 S.W.2d 242 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1997)

................................ ........................ 12
State v. Velaquez , 994 S.W.2d 676 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1999)

................................ ........................ 12 , 13
State v. Weaver , 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)

................................ ........................ 6 St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007)

................................ ....................... 5
Wood v. State,

515 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974)

................................ ........................ 11vi TEXAS COURTS OF APPEAL: Arroyo v. State , 881 S.W.2d 784 (T e x. App.

— Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1994)

............................. 12
Graham v. State, 893 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.App.

— Dallas 1994, no pet.)

................................ ........... 9
Flores v. State , 824 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.App.

— Corpus Christi 1992)

................................ ...... 10

Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 49 (Tex.App.

— Houst on [1st Dist.] 1992)

................................ . 9, 10 Josey v. State , 981 S.W.2d 831 (Tex.App

. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1998 )

............................. 6

STA TUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

T EX

. C ODE

. C RIM

. P ROC

. art

. 38.23

................................ ................................ ... 7
U.S. C ONST

. A MEND

. IV

................................ ................................ .................... 7

T EX

. C ONST

. art

. I § 9

................................ ................................ ........................ 712

- 15

- 00059

- CR

IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER , TEXAS

DERRICK DEMOND COOKS Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas Trial Cause No. 241

- 1485

- 14

TO THE HONORABLE JUST ICES OF THE COURT: COMES NOW, Austin Reeve Jackson, attorney for Derrick Cooks , and files this brief pursuant to the Texas Rules Of Appellate Procedure, and would show the
Court as follows:2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Derrick Cooks seeks to appeal his convict ion and sentence for the offense of possession of a controlled substance. (I CR 78). Mr. Cooks was indicted for this case in November of last year in the 241st District Court of Smith County. (I CR 1). To this charge he entered a plea of “not guilty” a nd proceeded to trial by jury. (I CR 78). After being found guilty, Mr. Cooks was sentenced by that jury to serve a term of two years’ confinement and pay a fine of $6,500. ( Id .). Sentence was pronounced on 3 March 2015 and notice of appeal then timely filed. (I CR 78, 89).
ISSUES PRESENTED

I. BECAUSE THE SEARCH OF MR. COOKS’ POC KETS EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF ANY LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE SEARCH, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
STATEMENT OF FACTS On 30 June 2014, an officer with the Smi th County Sherriff’s Office was working in tandem with undercover officers who were observing a suspected drug house. (III RR 11). That officer was given information describing a vehicle that had just left that house. (III RR 11). After observing the c ar commit a traffic vi olation the officer initiated a traffic stop. (III RR 12). Upon approaching the vehicle the officer observed an infant in the back seat, a young woman in the driver’s seat, and Appellant , Mr. Derrick Cooks, in the front

passenger seat. (III RR 15). After checking the driver’s license the officer disco v-3 ered that she had outstanding warrants and he placed her in handcuffs with the i ntent that she would be arrested. (III RR 16). He then approached Mr. Cooks and asked him to step o ut of the car. (III RR 16). According to the officer, at that point he was intending simply to make sure he could release the vehicle and the i nfant to Mr. Cooks. (III RR 16). Upon exiting the vehicle , the officer observed that, in his opinion , Mr. Coo ks appeared nervous, fumbled with his cell phone, and
otherwise seemed suspicious . ( Id .). As a result, the officer conducted a Terry pat

down for his safety. (III RR 17). Despite finding no weapons, the officer nonetheless then conducted a second

searc h of Mr. Cooks by instructing Mr. Cooks to walk to the back of the car and empty his pockets. (III RR 17). When he did so, Mr. Cooks removed from his pocket a bottle that was later determined to contain narcotics. (III RR 18). On this basis, Mr. Cooks w as arrested and subsequently charged with the offense of po ssession of a controlled substance. (III RR 19). In response to the charge Mr. Cooks entered a plea of “not guilty” and by way of a motion to suppress and an evidentiary hearing on the same dev eloped the argument that the seized narcotics should have been suppressed, as they were the result of an illegal search. (I CR 26, 78). The trial court, however, disagreed and denied the motion. (III RR 40). The trial proceed, Mr. Cooks was convicted, and he was then sentenced to serve a term of two years’ confinement. (I CR 78). Se n-4 tence was pronounced on 3 March 2015 and notice of appeal then timely filed. (I CR 78, 89).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Both t he United States Constitution and the Texas Co nstitution prohibit u nreasonable searches and seizures

. Generally, searches without warrants are
deemed unreasonable. One exception to this rule is a protective Terry pat

- down of

an individual who has lawfully been detained. However, the scope of a Terr y search is limited to an officer’s pat

- down search for weapons which may reason ably place him in fear of his life or serious injury. Once an officer has conducted
such a search and that search has produced no weapons or contraband, any further
search mus t be justified my probable cause and cannot be conducted merely b ecause the officer is suspicious that a person might have an unarticulated “som ething else” in his pockets. Here, the detaining officer conducted a Terry frisk and found no weapons.
After doing so and finding no weapons, the officer then ordered Mr. Cooks to em pty his pockets. That second search, conducted on the officer’s mere suspicion or hunch that there may be something in Mr. Cooks’ pockets the nature of which was not immediately dis cernable to the officer, was not constitutionally permissible and the resulting motion to suppress drug evidence recovered from that search should
have been granted.5 ARGUMENT

I. BECAUSE THE SEARCH OF MR. COOKS’ POCKETS EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF ANY LEGALLY PERM I SSIBLE SEARCH, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
In the instant case Mr. Cooks filed a motion to s uppress in which he sought
to exclude from trial a bottle of PCP that officers recovered as a result of searching his pockets. (I CR (I CR 32). A hearing was held on this motion during which time the detaining o fficer was the only witness to testify. ( III RR 10

- 40 ). Following the hearing the tr ial court made written findings of fact and conclusions of law and ultimately found
that the motion to suppress should be denied. ( III RR 35

- 40 ). However, because the trial court erred in concluding that the second search of Mr. Cooks’ pockets was constitutionally permissible, the Court should reverse the underlying judgment
and remand the c ase for a new trial.
Standard of Review A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed under a bifurcated
standard. Amador v. State , 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). A trial
court’s determination of historical facts is given almost t otal deference while the application of law to those facts is reviewed de novo. Id . As such, the trial court acts as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. St. George v. State , 237 S.W.3d 720, 725 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007).6 On appeal, the party that prevailed at trial is generally afforded the most favorable
vie of the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the same.
State v. Weaver , 349 S.W.3d 521, 525 ( Tex.Crim.App . 2011); Carm ouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 332 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).

Mr. Cooks W as Detained After hearing evidence on the motion to suppress, the trial court , although not explicitly, effectively found that Mr. Cooks had been detained. (I CR 38

- 39).
Moreover, a lthou gh the issue was uncontested at trial, that the actions of the officer in this case constituted an investigatory detention, or seizure is worth nothing as part of the analysis of this case

. See Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408, 412

- 14, 117 S.Ct. 882, 885

- 86, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (holding that when the driver of a vehicle is detained any passengers in that vehicle are detained as well); see also Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (For Fourth Amendment purposes a “seizu re” occurs when “by means of physical force or show of authority, [an officer] has in some way restrained the liberty of a cit izen.”). Similarly, to aid the Court’s in its review of the issue before it, Appellant
would concede that the driver in this inst ance, as found by the trial court, was l egally detained. (I CR 38); See, e.g., Josey v. State , 981 S.W.2d 831, 837

- 38 (Tex.App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d) (driver and passengers may be detained on the basis of a traffic violation committed by the driver).7 This does not, however, end the inquiry. Simply because someone has been legally detained does not mean that any subsequent search of their person is automatically legal. Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 (1967) (holding that such searc hes are per se unreasonable and subject to only a few, limited circumstances). In fact, a person detained by law enforcement continues to enjoy protections against
searches from both the United States and Texas cons titutions

. U.S. C ONST

. amend.
IV; T EX

. C ONST

. art. I § 9; T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 38.23(a). One of the few exceptions to the “inestimable right of personal security” the government intrusion on which is protected by our founding state and federal do cuments was discussed in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio

. Terry , 392 U.S. at 8

- 9. In Terry , the Supreme Court held that a police officer who has reasonable, a rticulable suspicion “that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at cl ose range is armed and presently dangerous to the officers or others” may be searched “to determine if the person is in fact carrying a weapon.” Id . at 24. On the same day it issued its opinion in Terry , the Supreme Court issued an opi nion in Sibron v. N ew York in which it explicitly limited the nature of the search di scussed in Terry to those few searches the “only goal of which might conceivably ” result in in the discovery of dangerous weapons. Sibron , 392 U.S. 40, 65, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (19 68). The Court has continued to restrict Terry searches8 in an unequivocal manner, explaining that “[t]he purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investig ation w ithout fear of violence.” Adam s v. Williams , 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Any search that exceeds that limited scope produces results that must be suppressed. Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366, 373, 113
S.Ct. 2130 , 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).
This Se arch Exceeded the Limited Scope S earch Authorized by Terry Appellant does not argue that the initial pat

- down search of Mr. Cooks was illegal or impressible. Rather, Appellant concedes, given the totality of the ci rcumstances , that the officer could permi ssibly conduct a pre

- emptive, protective
search of Mr. Cooks. See, e.g., Hamal v. State , 390 S.W.3d 302, 308 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (holding that nervousness when coupled with additional factors may justify a protective search ). However, the officer admitt ed at trial that
after initially patting down Mr. Cooks he found no weapon and conducted a second search of his pockets to see if Mr. Cooks “was still trying to hide something.” (III RR 32). After making this statement the officer attempted to walk it ba ck som ewhat explaining:
There’s a potential [after the pat

- down] to have a weapon in his poc ket. I don’t know exactly what’s in his pocket. I mean, I can feel loose change. There’s other items in the pocket. Could be a small pocke tknife. Could not be. I mean, I have no idea what’ s in his pocket. (III RR 33).9 The problem with this comment is that a Terry search is limited to those si tuation s where “a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger .” Terry , 392 U.S. at 27. Importantly, the officer in this case, even while noting there might have been something else in Mr. Cook’s pocket, was unable to describe anything he reason ably believed to be a threat: no bulge in the shape of a weapon, no sharp or dange rous object, nothing. Where the incriminating character of an object is not reason ably and immediately apparent, an office has no authority to perform a search to r etrieve the same. Graham v. State , 893 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Te x.App.

— Dallas 1994, no pet) ( citing Minnesota v. Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)). “[W]hen the conditions of the ‘plain feel’ doctrine ... are not pr esent, an officer conducting a valid investigative detention must have prob able
cause in order to conduct a search for non

- weapon contr aband or other evidence.”
Bald w i n. v . State , 278 S.W.3d 367, 372 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009). And an inartic ulate suspicion or hunch, as the Court has here, is not the stuff of probable cause.
Ford v. State , 158 S.W.3d 488, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Because the officer found no weapons or other immediately identifiable contraband, and because he lacked probable cause to conduct his search exceeding that scope permissible by Terry , there was no legal b asis to support any additional search of Mr. Cooks’ pockets. See, e.g., Harri s v. State , 827 S.W.2d 49, 50

- 52 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st10 Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d) (officers cannot extend Terry search to contents of pockets on mere hunch or possibility of findi ng contraband or a weapon). Additionally , to the extent that the officer in this instance was concerned
about his safety , that concern must have been reasonable. Terry , 392 U.S . at 28. That is, the officer must have been reasonable concerned that Mr. C ooks was ca rr y ing a weapon in his pockets the nature of which posed a legitimate risk to his safety. Id . Yet we know this was not the case as the officer had already check for weapons and found none and further testified that, at most, he thought Mr. Coo ks might have “a small pocketknife.” (III RR 33 ). A small knife, razor blade s , ne edles or other such weapon s does not rise to the level of threatening officer safety to the point that an additional search can be justified. See Davis v. State , 829 S.W.2d

218 , 220 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1992) (scope of search is limited to the discovery of weapons that could reasonably be used to harm the officer) ; Har ris , 827 S.W.2d at 52; Flores v. State , 824 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tex.App.

— Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.). Terry permi ts a search only for those weapons that could reasonably harm the police officer. “If in the course of a pat

- down frisk the o fficer satisfies himself that the suspect has no [such] weapons, the o fficer has no valid reason to further invade the suspect’s ri ght to be free of police intrusion absent probable cause to arrest.”

Davis , 829 S.W.2d at 221 ( quoting Lippert v. State , 664 S.W.2d 712, 721 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1984). The purpose of a limited search after an investigatory stop11 is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to allow an officer to pursue an invest igation without the fear of violence. Wood v. State , 515 S.W.2d 300, 306 ( Tex.Crim.App . 1974). Once the officer in this case relieved himself of that fear, he had no legal authority to search Mr. Cooks’ pockets and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. To this end, Appellant would urge the Court to adopt the language of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Davis and hold: Although there were adequate grounds to search appellate for weapons, the sc ope of the search conducted by [the officer] clearly excee ded any justification that he might have had to search for weapons for his protection and therefore rendered the [drugs] inadmissible under Article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution and the Fou rth and Fou rteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

. Davis , 829 S.W.2d at 221.
There Was No Valid Consent to the Search The State will likely argue in response that Mr. Cooks consented to the search of his pockets. However, it should be n oted that the “request” to empty his pockets was not so much a request or option pretend to Mr. Cooks, but an instru ction to submit to a search given to him by an officer who had detained him. See, e.g., United States v. Reyes , 349 F.3d 219, 225 (5th Cir. 2003) (officer’s verbal o rder to empty pockets constituted a search); United States v. Dalpiaz , 494 F.2d 374, 377 (6th Cir. 1974) (same); United States v. Foust , 461 F.2d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 1972) (same). To the extent that the request made of Mr. Cooks w as a request to which he consented, to be valid that consent must have been voluntary. Ca r-12 mouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 331(Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Voluntariness must be proven by the State by clear and convincing evidence and is determined by a r eview of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Ibarra , 953 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Carmouche , 10 S.W.3d at 331.

Here , prior to asking Mr. Cook s to empty his pockets, the officer had made a show of force by activating his vehicle lights, pul ling over the driver of the vehicle, ordering Mr. Cooks out of the car, and by instructing Mr. Cooks to walk to the rear
of the vehicle

. (III RR 10

- 35) . Mr. Cooks yielded to this show of authority and was, for Fourth Amendment purposes, detained. Kaupp v. Texas , 538 U.S. 626, 629, 123 S.Ct. 1843, 155 L.Ed.2d 814 (200 3) ( a “seizure” occurs when “by means of physical force or show of authority, [an officer] has in some way restra ined the liberty of a citizen.”). Additionally, at that point, the driver of the vehicle was standing in handcuffs and was being arrested on outstanding warrants. ( III RR 31)

. So, ef fectively t he officer prevented Mr. Cooks from both waling away and driving away. After thus restraining Mr. Cooks, the officer also failed to infor m him that he had the right to refuse to consent to any search. See State v. Velasquez , 994 S.W.2d 676, 679 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (an officer’s failure to advise a person of
their right to refuse consent is a factor courts may consider); Arroyo v. State , 8 81 S.W.2d 784, 789 (Tex.App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Under these circumstances no reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave or13 refuse to comply with the instructions of an officer who had substantially infringed
on their l iberty. Id . at 678

- 79 (the test is “whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.”) ( citing Florida v. Bostick , 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). Therefore , because any consent that was arguably given was involuntary, it cannot serve to cure an othe rwise unconstitutional search.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, counsel prays that bec ause the search of Mr. Cooks was constitutionally impressible, and because, therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized subsequent to that search, that the Court reverse the underlying judgment and remand the case
for a new trial. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 015214 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I c ertify that a true and correct copy of this brief was delivered to counsel for the State by e - file concurrently with its filing in the Court.
/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this document complies with the requiremen ts of Rule 9.4 and co nsists of 3,136 words.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson