### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00750-CR

Paul M. Vall ejo, Appel

lant v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 5 OF

TRAVI S COUNTY NO. 556-269, HO NORABLE GI SELA D. T RIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

A jury fou nd

ap pe l l an t Pau l M. Val l ej o gui l ty of dri vi ng wh i l e i ntox i ca ted (DW I), f or whi ch the c ourt ass ess ed pu

nish men t at in carc eration f

or 140 da y s an d a $1 000 f

i ne . SeeTe x. P en. Code Ann. § 49 . 04 ( We st Su pp . 20 01 ) . Ap pe llant co nt en ds t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed by o ve rrulin g h is
m oti ons to suppress ev

ide nce, by adm ittin g evi dence of extraneous off

enses , and by

refus in g to su bmit the propriety of h is detention an

d in terro gation as ques

tions of f act for the j ur y. W e w ill ove rr ule t hese co nt ent ions a nd affirm t he co nvictio n.

Au st in Po lice Officer G ar y Hanna t est ifi ed a t t he pr et rial sup pr essio n hear ingt hat he recei ved a r ad io r ep o r t o f a d ist ur ba nc e in vo lving an int o xic at ed male at a r est aur ant . While dr iving to th e s cen e of

th e r ep orte d di stu

rb ance , he re ceived a fur t her re po rt t hat t he su spe ct had left t he re st aur ant in

a bl ack C am

aro, dri vi ng e ast. Mom

en ts l ater, Ha

nn a en coun tered a bl ack C am aro t ra veling ea st f rom th e r estau ra n t. Th e l i cens e p l atenu

m be r of thi s v eh i cl e m atc he d that re

porte d f or1 The tr i al testi mon y wa s th at th i s w as a m atte r of pr oce du re . V eh i cl es dri v en b y DW I-ta s k f orce-of f i cers are equi pped wi th audio-vi

deo recor ders for preser vi ng the fi eld tests. The se of

f i cers arenot o nl

y certif ied to co nduct fiel

d sobriety tests ( as was Off icer Hann a), but also to adm

in is ter in to xi ly zer tests. Assi

gned f ul l ti me to D W I ca se s, ta sk-f

orce of f i cers com pletethe proc es si ng of persons arr ested for D WI, all owing patro l off

icers to re tur n to t hei

r regular dut ies. 2 By the tim e Guerra arriv

ed, Off ic er Mi chael

High to wer had also arr ived to se rve as Hanna’s bac ku p. Hig ht o we r d id no t t es t ify at t he pr et rial hear ing, bu t did t est ify at t rial. H is te st imony

was relati vel y b rief and corroborat ed that of Off ic er Hann a. 2 t he sus pect vehi cle ex

cept f or one ch arac ter. Hanna began

to fol low the Cam

aro and stopped it after he obse rve d i t turn wi thout si gna l i ng. Appe llantwas the d

ri ver and sole occu

pan t of the Cam aro. Wh en Han na approached t he car , he imm

ediat ely not iced t he odo r o f alcoho li c beverage. Appellant’s eyes we re bloo dsho t and his sp ee ch wa s s lur r ed . Ap pe llant ha d d ifficu lt y re t r iev ing his driv er’s l ic ense an d proo f of in surance, fumbli ng and droppin

g the item

s i n hi s wal le t. Hanna, suspecti

ng that appella

nt was i ntoxica ted, ca lled f or a DWI- task-for ce offi

cer to conduct fi

eld sobri ety test s. 1 Fo r his sa fet y and t o p re vent app ellant f

rom dri v i n g a wa y , H an n a i n str uc te d appel la

nt to step from h

is car. He noticed that app ellant wa s u nst ab le on his fee t and lea ned o n t he ca r fo r su ppo rt . H anna t est ifi ed t hat app ellant wa s b el l i ge ren t, an d re pe ate dl y as ke d f or an attorn ey an d if he we re f ree to go. Off ic er Mi chael Gu er ra ar ri v ed f i f tee n to twenty m

in utes after Hann

a calle d for a taskforce off i cer. 2 Gu er

ra testi f i ed th at a pp el l an t wa s l oud an d a rgum en tati v e, an d th at h e r ef us ed to perf orm t he field sob

ri ety tes ts. G ue rra al so n oted ap pe l l an t’s bl oods hot eyes, slurr ed s pee ch, and strong alcoholic

beverage odor . Guerra arrested appellant for driv in g whi le in to xicated. Appe llantdoes n

ot chal l enge th e propri

et y o f t he in itial st op , bu t he ur ges t hat t he subs equ ent de t en t io n w as un r ea so na bly l ong a nd h ence un l awf ul . Appel la nt contends the evi

dence3

obtaine d as a re sult of t his unlawful de t ent ion sho uld have been s upp re ssed . H e also asse rt s t hat t he sta tem en ts he ma de t o t he o ffi cers were in adm is si ble as the products of unlawful custodial inter ro gat ion. In revi

ewi ng these contentions, we defer t o t he t rial co ur t ’s fact ual de t er minatio ns but review de novo the c ourt’s a ppl i cation of the l aw to the f

acts. See Guz

man v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex . Cri

m . App. 1997 ). A traffic st o p is an alo gous to a tem porary i nv esti gati ve deten tion . Berkemer v. McCarty , 46 8 U .S. 42 0, 4 39 (1 98 4) . Su ch a dete n ti on may l ast n o l on ger than

i s n ec es sa ry to ef f ec tua te the purpose

of the stop. Florida v. Royer , 460 U .S. 491, 5 00 (19 83); Davis v . State , 947 S.W.2d 240, 243-45 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 97 ). A

pp el l an t ar gu es th at i t wa s u n n ec es sa ry to de t ain him f ortwenty m

in utes to eff

ectuate t he purpose of the traf f i c s top, b ut in do ing so he igno re s t he officer’s observati ons f

oll owing the stop. Facts that com

e to a n of f i cer’ s a tten ti on during the course of a rout in e traff ic stop may j usti f y a con tin ued deten tion and a b roader i nv esti gati on. Razo v. State , 577 S. W.2d 709 , 71 1 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 79) ; Estrada v. State , 30 S.W.3d 59 9, 603 ( T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

2000, pet. r ef’ d). Off

ic er Hann a articul ated several

facts that reasonabl

y s upport ed det aining app ellant f

or i nv es ti ga ti on of DW I: th e strong odor

of alcoholic beverage and ap pellan t’s bl oods hot eyes, slurr ed s pee ch, and impair ed mo t or skills. T he t went y-minute delay while aw aiting t he arriv al of the DWI-task-f

orce offi cer was not, un

der th e ci rcum stan ces , unr eas onab l e. SeeUnited States v. Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 687 n.5 (1985). Point of error o ne i s overruled.

Vide ot ape eq

ui pm en t i n G ue rra ’s pa trol car recorded t he enc ou nt er bet wee n app ellant an d the of f i cers f rom the ti me of Guerr a’s arr ival

at t he scene of t he sto p t hrou gh appellant’s arrest and t ra nspo rt t o t he police station. Appell ant moved to suppress the audi o por tion of the v ide ot ape4

in it s e nt ir et y, argui

n g th at h i s state men ts to the of f i cers we re th

e p roduct of

cu stod i al i nte rrog ati on and th at he

had not b een

properl y adv i sed of h i s ri ghts . See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 43 6 (1966 ); Te x. Code Crim . Proc. Ann . ar t . 38 . 22 , § 3 ( We st Su pp . 20 01 ) . T he t r ial c o ur t o ve rrule d t his
m oti on, bu t did su pp r es s c er t ain port ions of the tape. On appeal , appell ant reurges hi s contention that t he entire audio should hav e been suppress ed , alon g wit h any te st imony by the o ffi cer s re gar ding appella nt’s statemen

ts at t he scen

e of the stop. Per so ns who are

de tai ne d pu rs ua nt to a routi ne traf f i c s top a re n ot i n c us tody f or pu rp o se s o f Miranda and article 38.2 2. Berkem er v. McC arty , 468 U.S. 420, 440 (19 84) ; State v. Waldrop , 7 S.W.3d

836, 839 (Tex. App.—Austi n 1999, no pet.). Subsequent even ts, however, may cause a noncustodial

encounter to esca l ate i

nto custodia

l i nterroga tion . State v. Stevenson , 958 S.W.2d 824, 828 (Tex. Crim . App. 1997). Appella nt argues that even b efore his f ormal ar r es t , his de ten ti on had esca la ted in to custody

because he was f orced to remai

n at the scene

for twenty m

in utes wh il e aw ai

ti n g th e arriv

al of Of fi cer Guerra and be cause the presen ce of three off

ic ers created a pol i ce-dom

i na ted atm osphere. See Berkemer, 46 8 U. S. at 437 -39 ; Waldrop , 7 S.W.3d at 839. We ha ve alr ea dy h eld t ha t ap pe llant wa s ju st ifiab ly de t ain ed t o aw ait the DWI-taskforce of f i cer. Th e s cene of the de ten ti on was a p ublic st re et , a nd ap pellant was allowe d t o s t and out si de his ca

r wi thout an y phy sical restrai nt. These

ci rcum stan ces areanal ogo us t o t ho se in Waldrop , wh er e t he de fen da nt wa s s t o pp ed fo ra t r affic violation a nd then de tai ne d f or th e a rri va l of an officer who per for med field so briet y tes t s. T his Co ur t co nclude d t hat t he defen dant was no t in custody dur ing t his det ent ion and t hat t he st at ement s he made p rio r t o his fo rmal ar re st wer e no t t he product of c

ustodial i nterroga tion . 7 S.W.3d at 839. We reach the sam e concl usi on here. We ho ld3 T he o ve rrulin g o f his mo t io n in l i m i ne di d not pre serv

e error. Harnet

t v. State , 38 S.W.3d 650, 655 (Tex. A

pp.—A usti n 20 00, pet. ref

’d). 5 that du ri n g a pp el l an t’s twen ty -m i n ute roa ds i de de ten ti on to i n v esti ga te hi s possi

ble DWI, he wa s not in a po lice
- do mina t ed at mo sp he r e s o as t o co nve r t his de t en t io n in t o cu st o dy.

The co unt y cou rt at law co rr ect ly ruled t ha t ap pellant was not in cust od y for t he purpo se o f Miranda an d a r t icle 38. 22 u nt il hi s for mal arr est by Offi

cer Gue rr a, and th at h

i s state men ts to the off

ic ers prior to his arrest were not the produ ct o f cust odi al i nterroga tion . The

court suppressed

al l un wa rned sta tem en ts a pp el l an t m ade i n re sp on se to i n ter rog ati on f ol l owi n g h i s a rre st. Appe llantdoe s n

ot contend that an

y pos t-ar res t sta tem en t wa s erron

eou sl y ad m i tted. Poi nt of err or two is overruled.

Ne xt, app ellant c ont ends t he trial court erroneously

adm itted extraneous m

is conduct t es t imo ny. Office r H ann a t es t ifi ed at trial , as he di

d at the pretr ia

l h earin g, that his attention wa s dr awn t o a ppe llant’s c ar beca use it mat ched t he de scr ipt ion o f the vehicle being d riven by a pe rs on report ed to be i ntoxica ted and to have c reated a di sturbance at a restaurant. Appel la nt urges that Hanna’s t est imony

should not have b een adm itted because

the evi dence was

not suf f i ci en t to support a fi ndi ng be yond a reasonabl e doubt that he was the person who createdthe d i sturb ance. See Har

rell v. State , 884 S.W .2d 154 , 160-6 1 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1994 ). Appellant’s co nt ent ion d oe s no t co mpo rt wit h his tr ial object ion. 3 SeeTex. R. App. P. 3 3.1 (a). In

an y ev en t, Harre ll do es no t ap ply

here. T he officer’s t es t imo ny w as o ffer ed mer ely to expl ai n how h e ca me to be at t he loc at ion in qu est ion and why his at t ent ion wa s dr awn t o6

appellant’s car . T he r elevanc e o f this t est imony did no t dep end o n whet her app ellant w as in fact t he person who created the report ed di sturbance. Poin t o f error three is

overruled. Fin ally, appe l l an

t conten ds the tri al courterred by

refusi ng to instruct t he jur y pur sua nt to arti cle 38.2 3. Tex. Code Crim . Proc. An n. art. 38.23( a) (West Supp. 2001). That st atute pr ovide s t hat in any case in which t he is sue i s rai sed, the j ury s hould b e i nstructedto dis

regard evidence that it bel ie ves, or hasa r ea son

ab l e doub t, was obtain

ed i n vi olation of the constitution or law s of Texas orthe Uni

ted St ates. Appella

nt ar gu es th at th e jur y shou ld have be en as ked t o d et er mine the pr op riet y of his det ent ion, ar re st , a nd int er ro gat ion.

An article 38.23 in

struction is

required wh

en t her e ar e fact ual disp ut es a s t o ho w t he evi dence wa s ob tai ne d; when the rel evan t f ac ts a re n ot i n d i spute , n o i

ns truc ti on i s req ui red. Estrada , 30 S.W.3d at 605. Appell ant does not refer us to any ev ide ncein the record raisi

ng a controverted is sue of f act relevant to any of the i ssues h e ci tes. Po in t o f error four is

overruled. The j udgme

nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 15, 2001 Do No t Publis

h