### NUM BER 13-07- 0017 9-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
SHA WN CY W. P ERE Z, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Sha w ncy W . Perez, w as cha rg ed b y informa tion wit h driv ing w hile int ox ic ated (“ DW I” ), his sec ond D W I offense. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04 ( Ver non 2003) , § 49.09( a) (Ver non Supp. 2007) (prov idi ng that a sec ond DW I of fense c onst it utes a C las s A

mis demeanor ). Perez ple aded g uil ty to the c harg es cont ain ed i n the i nformati on,2

and t he tr ial cour

t ass ess ed puni shment at 36 5 days c onfinement in the K leb erg C ounty Jai l sus pende d f o r 2 4 months of communi ty su per v is ion and a fine of $750.00. By one issue, Pe rezconte nds th at be cause t he stop o f h is vehicle w as illegal and unco nstitu tiona l, evidence su ppo rting the alleged DW I of fense was th e “f ruit o f

[an] unlawfu l dete ntion .” See U. S. C ON ST
. amends. IV, V, VI, X IV; see als o T EX
. C ON ST
. art. 1, § 9 (barring unreaso nab le
searches and sei z ures) ; T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 38.23 (V er non 2005) (p ro hib it ing
ev i de nc e i l l eg al l y

s ei z ed t o be u s ed a g ai ns t an a c c us ed i n a c r i mi na l t r i al )

. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On September 27, 2006, Perez w as charg ed by infor mati on w it h DW I. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 49. 04; id. § 49 .09( a)

. The in formati on c ontai ned an enhanc ement parag ra ph prov idi ng thatPerez had bee n prev iou sl y co nv ic ted o f DW I on Nov ember 25, 200 3. T he ch arges against Perez stemm ed f rom a traf f ic stop initiate d by King sv ille Police Off ic er Ted F ig ueroa dur ing the ev eni ng hours o f Aug ust26, 2006. On O cto ber

4, 2006, Perezfil ed a moti on to su ppress ev ide nce sei z ed by l aw enforc ement i n c onnec ti on w it h hi s d e tention and ar re st. O n J anuar y 16, 2007, the t ri al court con duct ed a hea ring on Pe rez ’s motio n to sup press. A t the h earing, only on e w itness
w as cal led : Off ic er

F ig ueroa. Off ic er F ig ueroa te sti fied th at he w as a pol ic e off ic er for the Ci ty of Ki ng sv il le and that he w as patroll ing the par ki ng lot of RAX Sports Bar in King sv il le, T ex as on the ni g ht of Pere z ’s ar re st. W hil e patroll ing the par ki ng lot , O ff ic er F ig ueroa w as approache d by an uni denti fied female w ho tol d the off ic er she had spot ted a male and a female in a maroon Bl az er fig hti ng and arg uin g
. She further des cr ibe d the v ehi cl e as hav ing se v eral pip es onO n cr oss- exam i nat i on, O ff i cer Fi guer oa t est i f i ed t hat he di d no t know who t he u ni dent i f i ed wom an 1 w a s a n d th a t s h e h a d n o t p ro v i d e d th e p o l i c e w i th i n fo rm a ti o n i n th e p a s t.

O ff i cer Fi guer oa n ot ed t hat he pul l ed o v er Per ez ’ s v ehi cl e wi t hout obse r v i ng a ny t r aff i c v i ol at i ons; 2 he ad m i t t ed t ha t t he t raffi c stop w as ba s ed so l el y on t he un i de nti fi ed w om an ’ s repo rt an d h i s du t y t o e ns ure th a t t h e p a rti e s w e re s a fe

. A t th e ti m e o f t h e s to p , P e re z d i d n o t h a v e a n y o u ts ta n d i n g w a rr a n ts fo r h i s a rr e s t. 3 the front g ri ll w hic h w er e used for s tor ing fish ing pol es. The w oman tol d Officer F ig ueroa that she obser

v ed th e male punch the f emale occ upant of the v ehi cl e dur ing the course of the a rg ument. She als o noted that she did not know the occ upants of the v ehi cl e and that 1 the v ehi cl e w as headed nor thbound on 1 4th S treet i n Ki ng sv il le. Fea ri ng for t he s afetyof the v ehi cl e’s oc cupan ts, Officer F ig ueroa adv is ed th e Ki ng sv il le Pol ic e D epar tment dis patc h operator of the a ll eg ed ev ents and proceed ed to dr iv e dow n 14t h Stree t. Once Of ficer Fig ueroa loca ted t he v ehi cl e matc hin g the desc ri pti on prov ide d by

the uni denti fied w oman, he init iat ed a traff icst op to ch eck on t he w elfare of the
v ehi cl e’s oc cupan ts and t o det er mine if any medi cal att enti on w a s n eeded. O ff ic er 2 Fi g ueroa te sti fied th at on ce he pull ed ov er Perez , he ide nti fied hi msel f, adv is ed Perezof the reas on for

the sto p, an d as ked Perezto ex itand ste p to the rear of the v ehi cl e. Off ic er Fi g ueroa al so ins tr uct ed th e female o cc upant to s te p to the front o f the v ehi cl e. Off ic er Fi g ueroa not ed th at he di d thi s t o q uest ion both par ti es separatel y

aboutthe all eg ed
ass aul t t o prev ent eit her party f ro m int imi dati ng the other

. Off ic er Fig ueroa noted that at the t ime he f irst id enti fied himsel f to Perezand the female oc cupan t, both par ti es smel led of alc ohol

. He further

st ated that both par

ti es had red, w ater

y ey es; Perez ’s sp eech w as sl ur re d ; P e r e z h a d a h a rd t i me k e e p i n g h i s b a l a n c e ; a n d t h a t t h e v e h i c l e s me ll ed of alcoh ol. In s pit e of thi s fin din g , O ff ic er F ig ueroa c ommenced the q uest ion ing of both par ti es4

conc er nin g the all eg ed as saul t. Accordin g to Off ic er F ig ueroa, b oth p arti es sta ted t hat n o ass aul t had tak en pl ace, but that they w ere merely

arg uin g ov e r an uni denti fied i ss ue. Bot h pa rties indicate d tha t everything w as a lrig ht. Neithe r partyex hibite d an y injuries. Off ic er F ig ueroa th en as ked Perezif he had been dri nki ng
. Perezstated that he had drank th re e or fo u r al co h o licbe vera ges th a t e ven in g. Of f icer Fig uero a the n test if ied th at w hile question ing Perez , Of f ic er Cindy Garcia
ar ri v ed atthe sc e n e a n d co nduct ed fiel d s obr iety tes ts on Perez
. Off ic er F ig ueroa ex pla ine d tha t O ff ic er

Garci a c onduc ted the sobr iety tests because she w as more q ual ified to do so and becau se he had re tur ned to his sq uad car to chec k P erez ’s bac kg ro und for any outs tandi ng w ar ra nts or ar re sts

. Subs eq uent to Off ic er Garci a’s admini strati on of the f ield sob rietytests, Pe rezw as place d un der arrest for DW I and ta k e n to the Klebe rg Coun ty Jail. Of f ic e r F igueroa f urthe r testif ied th at th e en tire inv estigation w as con duct ed in accord ance w ith no rmal po lice proced ures an d tha t had Perez not exhibited cha racteristics of alc ohol int ox ic ati on, he w oul d hav e been immedi atel y rele ased from the br ief det enti on upon Off ic er Fi g ueroa’ s conc lus ion that no ass aul t had tak en pla ce. Off ice r Fig ueroa sta ted t hat the female occ upant w as not arrest ed and w as pic ked up f ro m the s cene by an uni denti fied par

ty

. After the h ear ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied Perez ’s moti on to su ppress on J anuar y 16, 2 0 0 7 . On Mar ch 12 , 2 0 0 7 , P e re z f ile d a “ M I S D EM EA NO R PL EA : W AI VE R OF JURY, RE QU EST TO W AIVE PR ESEN TENC E IN VESTI GA TION , AN D APPLI CATION F OR PR OBATIO N OF SEN TENC E.” I n thi s fili ng , Perez ple aded g uil ty to the off ense of DW I, his secon d DW I of

fense
. T he trial co urt accep ted P erez’s plea o f g uilt and subse quentlyA s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , P e r e z f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e a l l e g e d DW I 3 off ense. A m ot i on t o sup pr ess i s not hi ng m or e t han a spe ci al i z ed obj ect i on t o t he adm i ssi bi l i t y ofev i dence. S e e G a li tz v . S ta te , 6 1 7 S .W .2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (e n b a n c ); W i ls o n v . S ta te , 857 S. W

. 2d 9 0, 9 4 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 3 , p e t. re f’d ). T h e re fo re , P e re z’ s is s u e h a s b e e n p re s e rv e d f o r a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33

. 1(a ). 5 sent enced hi m to 3 65 day s’ co nfinement in the K leb erg C ounty Ja il su sp ended for

24 months of communi ty

su per v is ion , and i mposed a $750. 00 fine. The record does not cont ain a moti on for newtri al filed by

Perez
. How ev er , he filed a not ic e of appeal on M ar ch 12, 2 007. The tr ial co urt cer ti fied Perez ’s ri g ht to ap peal on Ma rc h 14, 2007. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. 3 II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W hether a s peci fic search or sei z ure w as re asona ble i s a mix ed q uest ion of law and fact and is re v iew ed de nov o. St. Geor ge v . St ate , 237 S.W .3d 720, 725 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2 0 0 7 ) (ci ti n g Kothe v. State , 152 S.W .3d 5 4 , 6 2 -6 3 ( T ex . C ri m. App. 2004) ). W e do not eng ag e i n our

ow n factual re v iew , ra ther the tr ial jud g e is the sol e tr ier of fact and jud g e of
credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and t he w eig ht t o be g iv en to thei r tes ti mony
. Sta te v. Ross , 32 S.W .3d 853, 855 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000) ; Guz m an v . St ate , 95 5 S. W .2 d 85 , 89 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1997)

. Tri al cour ts ar e g iv en al most compl ete d eferenc e i n det er mini ng hi sto ri cal facts. Car

m ouche v. Sta te , 10 S.W .3d 323, 327 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2000)

. W e rev iew the record to dete rmine w het her the trial court's r uling is supp orted by the record an d correct under so me theory

of l aw appl ic abl e to the c ase. Ar m endar iz v. Sta te , 123 S.W .3d 4 01, 4 0 4 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 3 )

. " W e c o n d u c t a d e n o v o r e v i e w o f e v i d e n c e w h e n the
re sol uti on of mix ed q uest ion s of l aw and fact do not tur n on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor ." St. Geor

ge , 237 S.W .3d a t 725

. W hen , as in this case, there a re no explicit fa ct f in d in gs, an d ne ither pa rty timelyT h e S ta te h a s n o t fi l e d a n a p p e l l a te b rie f i n re s p o n s e to P e re z’ s c o n te n ti o n s
. S e e S i v e ra n dv . S ta te , 4 89 S

. W

. 3d 21 6, 21 9 (T ex
. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , no pe t

. ) ( “T he T e x as R ul es of A pp el l ate P roc ed ure re q u i re a p p e l l a n t t o e i th e r fil e a b rie f o r s ta te th a t h e n o l o n g e r d e s i re s to p ro s e c u te th e a p p e a l

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .8 ( b ) . H o w e v e r , t h e r e is n o c o r r e s p o n d in g r u le r e q u ir in g th e S ta te to f ile a b r ie fin r e s p o n s e to a p p e lla n t’s b r ie f .” ) . It w a s n o t in c u m b e n t u p o n th e S ta te to f ile a n a p p e lla te b r ie fin r e s p o n s e to P e r e z ’s c la im

. 6 requeste d f indings and conclusio ns, w e imp ly the n e c e s s a ry fact f indings tha t w ould supp ort the court's ruling if t he evidence, view ed in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e cou rt's
ru li ng , s uppor

ts thos e findi ng s. S ta t e v. Kelly , 204 S.W .3d 8 08, 8 19 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 6). III . A N AL Y S IS 4 In hi s s ole i ss ue on appeal , Pe re zco ntends thatthe sto p of hi s v ehi cl e w as il leg al and constitu ted an illegal search and seiz ure. Spe cif ically , Perez arg ues th at beca use Of f icer Fig uero a de taine d him base d sol el y on an unco rroborat ed a non y mo us tip, evidence of his D W I offense w as the “fr uitof [an] unl awful det enti on” and, therefore, ina dmis si ble

. a. Rea sonable ness of the Detention The Fou rt h Amendmentto the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on and arti cl e 1, sec ti on 9 of the Te x as Const itution gua rante e the right of t he peo ple to be secure againstunrea sona ble
searches of thei r persons , hou ses , pap ers, and effects. See U .S. C ON ST
. amend. I V; T EX
. C ON ST
. art.1, § 9. The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has recog niz ed th re e c ateg or ies of interactio ns be tw een p olice of f icers and citizens: enco unt ers, investig ative dete ntion s, and ar re sts

. State v

. Pe re z , 8 5 S

. W

. 3 d 8 1 7 , 8 1 9 (T e x. C r i m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 2 ). In ve s t ig a t ive det ent ions and arrests are consid ered seizures for Fourth Am end me n tp u rp o s es. Se e Gur ro la v. State , 877 S.W .2d 300, 302 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1994) ; see als o Saldiv ar v. Sta te , 209 S. W .3d 2 75, 2 81 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 06, n o pet .)

.7

In de ciding w het her Pe rez 's de t e n t ion w as reaso nab le, w e v iew the trial court's factual findi ng s i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to it s r uli ng , but we d e cid e the is sue of
r ea s on ab l en es s a s a q ue s ti on o f F ou rth A me nd me ntl aw u nd er U ni te d St at es Suprem e Cou rtp re ce d e n t. Kothe , 152 S.W .3d a t 63. I n Kothe , th e c ou rt no te d th att he s up r em e
c ou rt ha s s ta te d th at"F ou rth Am en dm en t ' r ea s on ab l en es s ' i s me as ured ' i n ob j ec ti v e te r ms by ex amini ng the total ity of the c ircums tanc es' ; i t ' esc hew [s] br ig ht- li ne r ule s, ins tead emphasi z ing the fact- spec ificnature of the .

. . i nq uir y .' " Id. (quo ti n g Ohi

o v . R obi nette , 519 U.S. 33 , 39 (19 96)). Rou ti ne traff icst ops ar e anal og ous to inv est ig ati v e det enti ons and are g ov er ned by Terry v. Ohio , 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968) ; Ma rt ine z v. Sta te , 236 S.W .3d 361 , 369 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 07, p et. dis m'd) ; Gans ky v. State , 180 S.W .3d 240, 242-4 3 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 2005, pet. re f'd). A Terry a n a l y s i s h a s tw o p ro n g s
. See Terry, 392 U .S. at 19

. Fi rs t, a
cour t mus t dec ide i f an off ic er 's ac ti on w as jus ti fied atits in cept ion

. St. Geor ge, 237 S. W .3 d at72 5 -2 6 (cit in g Terry, 392 U .S. at 19-2 0 ). Se cond, the cour t mus t det er mine
w hether the search and s eiz ur e w as re asona bly rela ted i n s cope to t he c ircums tanc es that jus ti fied th e i nter

ferenc e i n the first pla ce. Id. at 726; Kothe , 152 S.W .3d a t 63. To deter mine “reason abl eness ,” w e uti li z e an obj ect iv e s tandard, as ki ng w hether the fact s a v ail abl e to the o ff ic er at the momentof the s ear ch or se iz ure w ar ra nt a person of re asona ble cauti on to belie v e tha t t he ac ti on ta ken w as appropr iat e. Terry, 392 U. S. a t 21- 22; Dav

is v. Sta te , 9 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p
. 1 9 9 7 ). Fu rt h e rm o re , we bal ance the n ature of the int ru si on int o an ind iv idu al’ s ri g ht to be free of arbi trar y dete nti ons and i ntr usi ons ag ain st the p ubl ici nterestat sta ke. Zay as v. State , 972 S.W .2d 7 79, 7 898

(Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 1 9 98, p et. re f’d)

. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on notbas ed on
re asona ble sus pic ion is unreason abl e and, thus , v iol ati v e of t he Four th Amendment. See Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 243 ; s e e a ls o A da ms v
. W il lia ms , 40 7 U .S

. 1 4 3, 14 5- 46 ( 1972) (i nti mati ng thatan i nv est ig ati on i s c onsi dered to be a less er intr usi on upon one’ s p ersonal security); M

ilton v . St ate , 549 S.W .2d 1 90, 1 93 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1977) ( same)

. b. Whether Office r Figueroa’s Action w as J ustified at its Inception T he te st for dete rmining the le gality o f a st op tha t w arrants f urthe r inv estigation is
w het her the of

f icer can po int to spe cif ic articulable facts, wh ic h i n l ight of the of f icer’s perso nal kno w ledge an d exper i en c e, t og et her w ith oth er inferen ces f rom th ose facts, would
w ar ra nt s uch a n i n tr usi on. Vannatta v . St ate , 773 S.W .2d 7 71, 7 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989, w ri t di sm’ d)

. A pol ic e off ic er may br iefly st op a sus pic iou s i ndi v idu al in order to de term ine his iden tity or to ma intain the sta tu s q u o m o m ent arily w hile ob tainin g mo re infor mati on. Hoa g v

. St ate , 728 S.W .2d 375 , 380 (Tex. Cr im. App

. 198 7). How ever, there
mu st be a “reaso nab le su s picion” by the of f icer that so me activ ity out of the ord inary is
occ ur ri ng or

had o cc u rred, s ome su g g est ion to conne ct the d etai ned person w it h the
u n u s u a l a c t i v i t y , a n d s o me i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y i s r e l a t e d t o c r i me
. Gurrola , 877 S.W .2d at 302. “W here the init ial detenti on is unl awful, an y ev ide nce sei z ed s ubseq uent to such a dete ntion is i nad missible .” Id. Tex as cour

ts hav e re peatedl y hel d that an anony mous ti p may prov ide su f f icient jus ti ficat ion for pol ic e off ic ers to commenc e an inv est ig ati on. See Clem ons v. State , 605 S.W .2d 567, 57 0 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1980) ; Ma nn v . St ate , 52 5 S. W .2 d 17 4, 17 6 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. 1975) ; Geor

ge v . St ate , 509 S.W .2d 347 , 348 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 7 4); see alsoT he cour t of cr i m i nal app eal s not ed t hat once t he p ol i ce off i cer s st at i oned t hem sel v es at t he 5 i nt er sect i on, “ t hey saw no unusua l act i v i t y occur r i ng o r t aki ng p l ace, such as pe r sons i n on e v ehi cl e sho ot i ng at per sons i n an ot her v ehi cl e” and t hat t hey obse r v ed t he “ br own ov er bei ge El C am i no” t r av el i ng so ut h on P a rk e r L a n e a b o u t th re e o r fo u r m i n u te s a fte r t h e y h a d a rr i v e d a t t h e i n te rs e c ti o n
. G l a s s v . S ta te , 681 S. W

. 2d 59 9, 60 0 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 19 84 ). 9 Vannatta , 773 S.W .2d a t 773 ; Ram ir ez v. St ate , 658 S.W .2d 8 08, 8 10 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1983) , a f

f ’d , 672 S.W .2d 4 80 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984)

. In Ra m ir ez , for e x am pl e, a n un i de nt i fi ed p as s er by a pp roa c he d a pa trol l i ng p ol ice off ic er and tol d hi m that a “Lati n male w ear ing a y ell ow T-s hir t had a g un i n a n ear by bar .” 672 S. W .2d a t 481 -8 2

. T he officer w ent t o the bar , i denti fied th e s uspect, ask ed hi m to step out side, f risked him , and foun d a pisto l. I d. The c our t of cr imi nal appeal s h eld that the a cti ons o f

t h e o f f ice r w ere v ali d under

Terry, w it h the repor

t of the off ense and t he desc ri pti on of the acc used g iv ing r is e to a reason abl e s uspi ci on to j ust ify the sto p. Id. Con v ersel y , i n Gl

ass v. Sta te , 681 S.W .2d 5 99 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1984) , t he c our t of
cr imi nal appeal s conc lud ed that an anony mous ti p did not author iz e a stop . In Glass , a dis pa t c h e r

fo r t h e A u s t i n P o l i c e D e p a rt me n tre c e i v e d a c a l l fro m a n a n o n y mo u s p e rson
w ho sta ted thatthe drivers of a “b row n over be ige El Cam ino” and a “blu e Fairlane” w ere shoot ing at each other

near the int ersec ti on of Par ker and Ol tor

f Streets

. Id. at 600. After
s t a t io n in g t h e m s e lve s a t t h e re p o rt e d in t e rs e c t io n , A u s t in p o li c e o f f ic e rs sp o t t e d a b ro wn and bei g e El C amino. Id. The officers s topped the v ehi cl e and ask ed th e dr iv er to ste p 5 out. Id. at 60 1. A s ear ch of the pas seng er co mpart ment rev eal ed t wo p ist o ls and methampheta mine. Id. The cour t of c ri minal appeal s conc lud ed that the inv est ig ati v e sto p di d notmeet the sta ndards setforth i n Terry

. Spec ific all y , t he c our t not ed:Sect i on 2 2. 01( a) of t he T exas Pena l C ode pr ov i des: 6 ( a) A per son co m m i t s an off ense [ ofassau l t ] i ft he p er son: (1) i nten t i onal l y , knowi ngl y , or r eckl essl y cause s bod i l y i nj ur y t o an ot her , i ncl udi ng t he p er son’ s spou se; ( 2) i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y t hr eat ens a not her wi t h i m m i nent bod i l y i nj ur y , i ncl udi ng t he p er son’ s spou se; ( 3) i nt ent i onal l y or knowi ngl y causes phy si cal cont act wi t h an ot her when t he p er son k no w s or s ho ul d r ea s on ab l y be l i eve t ha t t he othe r w i l l reg ard t he c on t ac t as offen s i ve or pr ov ocat i v e. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 (a) ( V ern on S up p. 20 07 ). 10 In t his i nst ance, t he record does not re flectw hen t he al leg ed i nci dent occ ur re d or

w hen t he anon y mous repor t w as re cei v ed, and t herefore do es not show anyprox imi ty

of time of the sto p to the ev ents held bythe cour t of appeal s t o jus ti fy the sto p of t he v ehi cl e appel lan t had been dr iv ing

. W it hout such pr oxi m it y i n ti m e, it would not

be r eason able to conclude, s ole ly on t he basi s o f t he m atch of col

or and m ake of the car

, t hat t he c ar stopped was

the c a r i n v o l v e d i n t h e r ep o r te d i n cide n t. T h u s, t h e record does not suppo rta findi ng thatthe anony mous t ip author iz ed the s top o f the aut omobil e dr iv en by appel lan t. Id. at 601 -02 (em pha sis adde d). In t he i nst ant c ase, the jus ti ficat ion for t he sto p of P erez ’s v ehi cl e i s more ak in to t he si tuati on i n Ram ir

ez than i n Glass

. Here, an uni dentif ied female app ro ached Officer Fig uero a in perso n an d gav e him specif ic informa tion a bou t a possib le assau lt, w hich is a
cr imi nal act as defined in the penal code. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 01( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2007)

. The uni denti fied female noted that Perez had jus t left the RAX Spor ts Bar 6 in his ma roon Blazer w ith pipe s on the g rill , tha tshe ob serv ed Pe rezpun ch his fem ale compani on, a nd th at he w as headi ng no rt h b o u n d on 14th S treet. M oreov er , t he unid ent if ied fem ale provided Of f icer Fig uero a w ith the nece ssaryinforma tion wi th respe ct to prox imi ty

i n ti me suc h tha t Pe re z ’s st op w as not s ole ly premis ed on the “ match of col or11

and make of

the car.” See Glass , 681 S.W .2d a t 601 -0 2. Perez , h ow ev er , reli es heav il y on J ust ic e St ev ens’ s d is senti n Al abam a v . White , 496 U .S. 325, 333 ( 1990) for t he c ontent ion that becau se the w oman w as uni denti fied and had notg iv en i nformati on to the pol ic e before , t he i nformati on reli ed upon by Officer Fi g ueroa di d notes tabl is h reason abl e s uspi ci on for the sto p of P erez ’s v ehi cl e. In W hite , Jus ti ce Stev ens commented that : [a]ny body

w it h enoug h k now led g e about a g iv en person to mak e her a t arg et o f a p r a n k , o r

t o h a r b o r

a g r u d g e a g a i n s th e r , w i l l c e rt a i n l y b e a b l e to formula te a ti p about her li ke the one predi cti ng Vanes sa W hit e’s ex cursi on. In addi ti on, under the C our t’ s h old ing , ev er

y ci ti z en i s s ubj ectto bei ng se iz ed and q uest ione d by any

of f icer w ho is p repa red to te stif y thatthe warrant less sto p w as based on an anony mous ti p predi cti ng w hatev er co nductthe off ic er jus t obs er

v ed. Id. The major ity

i n W hite ac know led ged J ust ic e St ev ens’ s c oncer ns but e mphasi z ed the i mport ance of the repor ter ’s “ v eraci ty ,” “ re li abi li ty ,” and “b asi s of know led g e” i n der iv ing
re asona ble su spi ci on. Id. at 328- 29. Spec ific all y , t he W hite majo rityn ote d th at“ [s ]o me ti ps, co mplet ely lac ki ng in ind ic ia of reli abi li ty , w oul d eit her w ar ra nt no pol ic e respon se or require fu rther investig ation b efore a forcible stop o f a su spectw ould be au tho riz ed. ” Id. at 32 9. The W

hite maj or ity

furth er i nti mated t hat t he officer mustar ti cul ate s omethi ng
more than an “ inc hoate and unp arti cu la rized s uspi ci on or ‘ hunch ’” and that the F our th Amendment re q uires “s ome min imal l ev el of objec ti v e j ustif ication” for mak ing the sto p. Id. at 329- 30. In t he i nst ant c ase, Officer F ig ueroa’ s t est imony

at the moti on to suppress hear ing
e stabli shed arti cul abl e facts that , bas ed on his personal kn ow led g e and ex per ien ce,It is n o te w o r th y th a t i n m a k in g th e r e p o r t o fc r im in a l a c tiv ity, th e u n id e n tif ie d f e m a le s u b j e c te d h e r s e lf 7 t o cr i m i nal l i abi l i t y — a cl ass B m i sdem eanor— f or m aki ng a fa l se r epor t t o a peace off i cer or l aw enf or cem ent e m p l o y e e
. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 3 7.08 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 12 w ar ra nted suc h an int ru si on of Perez ’s se cur ity . The tr ial co urt c oncl uded t hat t he uni denti fied w oman prov ide d hones t and rel iab le infor mati on to Officer F ig ueroa g iv en th at: she w as presenti n t h e RAX Spor ts Bar par ki ng l ot w here the al leg ed as saul t w as per petrated by

Perez ; s he appro a ch e d Officer F ig ueroa personal ly ; and the infor mati on prov ide d by the uni denti fied w oman w as g enerall y tr ue. S e e Ro ss , 32 S.W .3d a t 855 7 (h old ing thatthe tr ial judg e is the sol e tri er of f actand jud g e of

credi bil ity

of the w it ness es and the weig ht to be giv en to their testim ony). T he u nide ntif ied wo m a n : (1) accurately desc ri bed t he make and model and Perez ’s v ehi cl e; (2 ) prov ide d acc urate infor mati on as to th e proximityo f

t he alleged crime; (3) note d tha t she did not kno w Perez or his fem ale
com pan ion (i.e., se em ing to negate a ny imp lication t h a t the report w as retaliat oryin nature) ; and ( 4) prov ide d ac curate i nformati on as to the p arti es inv olv ed. W e n ote t hat Off ic er F ig ueroa’ s i nv est ig ati on di d notyield concl usi v e ev ide nce est abl is hin g thatthe all eg ed as saul t t ook pla ce; how ev er , w e c oncl ude t hat O ff ic er F ig ueroa had more than an unpar ti cul ar iz ed s uspicio n t o i nv est ig ate t he al leg ed as saul t and thata pe rs on of
reaso nab le caut ion w ould have inv estigated t h e p ote ntial for bod ily harm to ano the r in thes e c ircums tanc es. Off ic er F ig ueroa te sti fied th at up o n r e ce iv ing the infor mati on from t he w oman, he q uic kl y anal y z ed th e v e ra ci ty

of the s tatement s a nd c oncl uded t hat t he i nformati on recei v ed
w as accu ra te an d w arrante d an inv estigation . Of f icer Fig uero a test if ied th at his deter minat ion as to the v eraci ty of the u nid enti fied female’s re por t c omported w it h us ual13

pol ic e c ust oms an d pol ic ies

. Fur ther more, i n s peaki ng to the u nid enti fied w oman, O ff ic er Fi g ueroa w as free t o as k fol low -u p q uest ion s t o furt her dete rmi ne th e hones ty

and v eraci ty of her sta tements

. In ex amini ng the total ity of the c ircums tanc es, w e c oncl ude t hat O ff ic er Fig uero a provided suf

f icient articula ble fa cts at the mo tion to supp ress hea ring to est ablish
a reason abl e suspi ci on that Perezhad ass aul ted h is female c ompani on, t hus jus ti fyi ng the sto p. c. W h e th e r

the Se arc h and Seizure Rea sonably Related to th e Justific ation for t he In it ial In te rf

eren ce Und er the sec ond Terry

prong , an inv est ig ati v e det enti on mus t b e temporar y and las t no lon g er

than nec ess ar

y to eff ect uate the purpo se of the s top. See F lor ida v. R oyer

, 460 U .S. 491, 500 ( 1983) ; Kothe , 152 S.W .3d a t 63; Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 243

. Onc e an off ic er co ncl udes the i nv est ig ati on of the condu ct that ini ti ated th e s to p , a cont inu ed detent ion i s permi tted onl y if there is rea sonab le sus pic ion to bel iev e another offense has been or i s b ein g co mmitt ed. Saldiv ar , 209 S.W .3d a t 282 ; see Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 243 ; Mc Quar ter s v . St ate , 58 S.W .3d 250, 256 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 01, p et. re f’d) ; see a lso Rob ine tte , 519 U .S. at 41 (Gi nsburg , J., conc ur ri ng ) ( Onc e poli ce sati sfythe re ason for th e sto p, t hey

may not use the s top a s a “ fishi ng ex pedi ti on for unrela ted cr imi nal act iv ity ”)

. In addi ti on, t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t has refused to pl ace anyr ig id ti me l imi ts on Terry st ops; i nst ead, the i ss ue i s “ ‘w hether the pol ic e di li g entl y

p u rsu e d a means of i nv es ti g at i on t ha t w as l i k el y t o c on fi r m or di s pe l th ei r s us pi c i on s q ui c k l y , du r i ng w hi c h ti me i t w as n ec es s ar

y t o de ta i n th e de fen dan t.’” Kothe , 1 5 2 S. W .3 d at64 -6 5 (quo ti n g United States v. Shar

pe , 470 U .S. 675, 685- 86 ( 1985) ). Off ic er F ig ueroa te sti fied that i n det er mini ng w hether the ass aul t t ra nspi re d, he14

q uest ion ed bot h Perezand the female oc cupan t s eparatel y , and he obser v ed bot h par

ti es for v is ibl e s ig ns of inj ur ies

. In que st io n in g t he par ti es about the a ll eg ed as saul t, Off ic er Fig uero a no ticed th at Pe rez : (1) sme lled of a lc o h o l; ( 2) had w ate ry ey es; (3) slurred his speec h; an d ( 4) had troubl e k eepi ng hi s b a la n ce
. B ased on th ese obser v ati ons and Perez ’s admi ss ion thathe had drank three or four alc ohol ic bev erag es that nig ht, Off ic er Fi g ueroa had suffici ent i nformati on to g iv e hi m re asona ble su spi ci on th at P erezhad been dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. As a resu lt , Off ic er Garc ia commenc ed a batte ry of f iel d s obr iety tes t s , w h i c h P e r e z fa i l e d a n d w h i c h u l t i ma t e l y l e d t o h i s a r r e s t

. O ffi c e r F i g u e ro a furt her noted that after he concl uded that an assaul t had not tak en plac e, Pere zw oul d hav e been free t o l eav e the sc ene had si g ns of alc ohol i ntox ic ati on notbeen present

. Th e e v i d e n c e d e mo n s t r a t e s t h a tt h e S t a t e s a t i s fi e d t h e s e c o n d p ro n g o f Terry and that the c onti nued de tenti on of Pere z t o i nv est ig ate a pos si ble D W I offense w as per mis si ble

. See Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 243 ; Saldiv ar , 290 S.W .3d a t 282

. In s um, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ev ide nce adduc ed atthe moti on to suppress hear ing demonst ra ted t hat t he repor t made by

the uni denti fied w oman w as suffici ent to g iv e Officer Fi g ueroa reason abl e s uspi ci on th at an as saul t had been or w as in the p ro cess of being
c om mi tt ed

. Th erefo r e, O ffic er F i g ue roa w as j us ti fi ed i n c on du c ti ng a b r i ef i nv es ti gatory detent ion i n ac cordance w it h Terry

. W hil e i n the p ro ces s o f inv est ig ati ng the all eg ed
ass aul t, Off ic er

F ig ueroa proc ured suff ic ien t informati on to gi v e him reaso nabl e s uspi ci on tha t Perez had be en d riv ing w hile into x icated . W e are of the op inion th at Of

f icer Fig uero a’s action s did notconstitu te a “f ishing ex ped ition for unrela ted criminal a c tiv ity .” See Rob ine tte , 519 U .S. at 42 ( Gi nsburg , J ., conc ur ri ng ); see also Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 243

. W e f urthe r conclu de that the evidence suppo rting Perez’s conviction for dr ivi n g while15

intoxicated w as no t the “f ruit o f [ an] unlawfu l dete ntion .” Accordingly , w e overrule Perez’s sol e i ss ue on appeal

. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Ma y , 200 8.