### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-01-00202-CR

Brian Ro nald Je ffr

ey, Appel lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 0991361, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

A j ur y f oun d B rian Ron al d J ef f re y gui l ty of c api tal m urder. SeeTe x. P en. Co de Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) (West 1994). The j ury f ound t h at th

er e w er e s

uf f i ci en t m i ti ga ti n g c i rc um sta n ce s to warra nt p uni sh men t of l i f e i m pri sonm en t rather th

an death
. SeeTe x . C ode

Cr i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 37.071, § 2(e)( i) (West

Supp. 2 002). Th

e tri al court sen tenc ed ap pel l an t to li f e i m pri sonm en t. See id
. § 2 ( g)
. On ap pe al, appe l l an t as se rtstha t ev i de nc e obtai

ne d a s a res ul t of hi s u nl aw f ul de ten ti on an d a rre st was er ron eou sl y ad m i tted . We wi l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t. Facts On the ni ght of Jan uary 18, 19 99 , Of

fic er S co t t P er ry, a 7
- yea rve t er an o f t he Au st in Police Dep ar t ment, wo rk ing alone in uniform and dr iving a m arked patrol car, wa s on

routi ne pa trol in Southwe st Au sti

n. A t 10:52 p .m ., Of

f i cer Pe rry turned in to an al le y tha t ran between

Wi ls on Street and Congress Av enue and behind T ro phy’s Ba r, a loc al hango ut freq uent ed by dr ug d ealer s and2

pro stitut es. The al

le y was poorly

li t. Pr ior to t hat even

in g, Off ic er Perry h

ad m ade “n ume rous drug
ar re sts and drug parap hernal

ia arrests” in the al

ley. Also, he was aware that ot her offi cers ha d pr ev io us ly

mad e a rre sts the re f or“drugoffenses, sto len

cars, par aphernalia off

enses, prost itution, just a wi de, wi de arr ay of of f en ses .” As Officer P er ry dr ove sl owly through the alley traveli

ng eastbound t oward Congress, he saw “two subjects just kin d of standing l

oo kin g at [ hi s] car and t ur n and start walki ng the other di rection.”A s h

e p roc ee de d th

rou gh th e a l l ey , the tw o m

en con ti nued wal kin g. However, when Off ic er Perry reach

ed the area where h

e had origi

nal ly see n th e tw o men , they sudde nl y s to pped, turnedar ou nd, and be gan w alking to ward hi m. Bec ause he wanted to fin d out why the two me

n ha d turnedar ound and be gun to approach

hi m and be caus e h e di

d not wa nt to be “ stuck i

n [the] ca r,” Of f i cer Pe rry i m medi atel y stopped a

nd e xi ted hi s pa trol c ar. As the two men app ro ache d, Officer P er ry met t hem in front of h i s pa trol c ar, wh

ere he as ke d t he m, “H ey, wh at’sgoi ng on ? W ha t are y ou doi ng ? ” Th e of f i cer noti ce d that the ol

de r of th e tw o su

b j ec ts, wh om h e l ate r iden ti f i ed as appe l l an t, Bri an Je f f rey , h ad a l arg e ta ttoo on the si de of hi s neck. The

younge r subj ect, later iden

tif ie d as Micha el Flet cher , a ppe ar ed t o be ar ou nd
seven teen or eighteen

ye ars of age. Appe ll

ant did m ost o f the tal

kin g. Appellant i

ni ti al l y tol d O f f i cer Perry tha t he an d h i s c om pa ni on were goi ng to a f ri end’s hous e on C ongre ss. Because the m en h ad turned around when

they saw t he pa t ro l car a nd had begun wal kin g westbound—away

fro m Cong re ss— t he off

ic er asked them

why , if hi s f rien d li ved
on Cong ress , they were wal ki ng a way f rom C ongre ss. Appe llantre sp on de d th at th ey weren ot qu

i te sure wh erethe fri

end l iv ed but that they

jus t knew that it was around Congress s omewh ere. When3

Off ic er Perry conti

nued to ask the two me

n where their f

rien d li ved an d h ow f ar i t wa s fr o m t he ir pr ese nt loca t ion, app ellant s aid t hat he di d not kn ow wh ere the f

ri end li ve d, prom pti ng O f f i cer Pe rry to ask them wh ere they

l i ve d. Usi ng hi s shoul der radio m

ic rophone, Off

ic er Per ry t hen no t ifi

ed t he dis pa t ch er t ha t he wa s “o ut o n so me s ub jec t s” an d t ha t he ne ed ed so meo ne t o ch ec k o n him. While wait ingf

or a b ac kup

of f i cer to ar ri ve , Of f i cer Perry con ti nu ed hi s c onv ers ati on wi th the two men . As h e di d so, he noticed wh at appeared to be f

resh b lood on appella

nt’s bl ue “warm -up styl e” pants. By

that point, Off

ic er Perry h

ad devel oped suspic ions

that t he two men

had been i nv olv ed i n s ome ki nd of cri m i na l acti vi ty. He then aske d the me

n if h e could f risk the m to ma ke
sur e t hey did no t have an

y we ap ons on t he m. Bo t h me n c o nse nt ed an d p lac ed t he ir h an ds o n t he ir heads. Of

f i cer Perry di d n ot f i nd a w ea pon on ei ther man butnoticed, whi

le fri ski ng appel la nt, that appellant’s hear t was “po unding in credibly hard.” Thi s f

urtherhei ghtened the off

ic er’s suspi

ci ons that t he men ha d b ee n in vo lve d i n s o me s o r t o f c r imina l ac t ivit y.

Officer P er ry t hen as ked t he t wo men for t heir names and i den ti f i ca ti on . A pp el l an t, Bria n Jef frey , to ld Of fi cer Perry that hi s nam

e was “Keith D omingu ez” and that he h ad an i nm ate ID but t hat his wallet and ID had been l ost or sto le

n a f ew days earlie

r. Appella

nt als o t old the off

ic er that he h ad be en in p r iso n fo rbu r gla ry o f a h ab it at io n. T he yo un ge rman , Mic ha el F let ch er , t o ld Off ic er Perry that hi s nam

e was “Jam

es Farel e.” Both men

wore blue c lothi

ng an d the y ounger man dis pla ye d a tatt oo t hat read

“ IGC ,” a n a cron y m kn own by Of f i cer Perry to ref er to a crim in al street gang kno wn as t he “In

san e Gan gster C ri ps.” Bot h m en admi tt ed at t hat time that t hey were Crips. As Officer P er ry was que st ioning t he t wo men, O ffi cer Ro ber t Haw kins arriv ed
. While Officer H awk ins st oo d wit h t he t wo men, O ffi cer Per ry re t ur ned t o his p at ro l car t o ve rify the4

men’s iden tities and to check t hem

for warrant s. He did so by en teri ng the na mesan d da tesof b i rth they had given hi

m i nto the vehicle’s

mobil e dat a te rmin

al (“MDT”). Offi

cer P erry’s se arch

f ai l ed to conf i rm the ide ntity of ei ther ind ividua l, de sp it e t he fac t t ha t ap pe llant ha d s aid t ha t he ha d p r ev io us ly
ser ved t ime in priso n.

As Of f i cer Pe rry wa s s ea rc h i n g h i s M DTda tab as e, Of

f i cer H aw ki n s n oti ced that app ellant app ear ed s omew hat ner vou s. Ap pellant was shak ingsligh tly , lean in g forward, and r oc king f orward o n t he ba lls o f his f

ee t . Be lievin g t ha t ap pe llant wa s p r ep ar ing t o flee , Offic er Hawki ns signal ed to Off i cer Pe rry . Of f i cer Perry the n n oti ce d that a

ppe l l an t wa s shi f ti ng f rom f oot t o fo ot and loo king aroun

d. To prev

en t appel l an t from f l eei ng, O f f i cer Pe rry steppe d out of h

i s pa trol c ar, approached

the two men agai

n, and ques

tioned the m

en f urther about t hei

r origi n an d de st inatio n. Appe llantthen ch

anged h is expl anati on, stating that he was go ingto hi s b

roth er -i n -law ’s ap ar tm en t, not t o his fr ien d’ s a pa r t men t as he ha d o r igin ally st at ed. In r esp ons e t o fu rt her que st ioning, app ellant stated t hat hi s brother-in

-law l iv ed i n the Courtyard Apa

rtments. Because

the alle y w here the m

en were st anding w as sit uat ed d irect ly behind the Court ya rd Apartmen

ts, t hat response f

urtheraroused Off icer Perry’s suspi

cions. Due to acom

bi na ti on of facto rs, including the fact t hat t here was bloo d on ap pellan t’s pants, t he fact t hat he believed t hat bot h men h ad g iven f ictit iou s names, and t he fact t hat t he app ellant had

giv en co nt r ad ict o ry exp lan at io ns c o nc er ning t he men ’s o r igin and desti nation, Of fi cer Perry as ke d t he men if t he y wo uld cons en t to a search of

thei r pockets
. Af

ter bot h m

en consen ted, Off ic er Pe rry se ar ch ed Mic ha el F let ch er an d O ffic e r Hawkin s search ed the appel

la nt. As Of

fi cer Haw kins sea rc hed t he ap pellant , he noti ce d b l ood s mea

red on the appella

nt’s l ower right pants leg5

and droplets of blood on the to e of hi s righ t shoe. During h

is search of t he ap pellant ’s co mpanion, Off ic e r Per ry f oun d a wal l et. W

h en Of f i cer Pe rry ope n ed th e w al l et a n d b eg an to l ook i n si de i t, app ellant said, “That’s m

y wal le t.” When O ff

ic er Perry rem

in ded him that he had previ

ously said that he had l ost his wallet , a ppe llant at t empt ed t o r eco ncile the two st atemen ts by say in g that t he wal

le t he ld by Offi cer Per ry was a new one . O ffi cer Per ry examined t he pape rs i ns i de th e wal

l et, howe ver, and noticed that t hey

were old , w or n, a nd t at t er ed. This cr eat ed e ven gr eat er sus picion in t he off ic er’s m in d. Both of f i cers the n b eg an as ki ng the two m en ab out the b l ood

on the appellan

t’s pants. As the y i ns pe cte d a ppe l l an t more c l ose l

y , th ey obs erv ed bl ood on t he t op and t he si

de s of h i s w h i te t en nis shoes. They

al so sawa larg e amo unt of blo od on t he inside o f app ellant’ s for ear m, pr omp t ing Off ic er Pe rry t o r ema r k, “Ma n, yo u a r e c o ve r ed in bloo d. ” When t he of

f i cers con ti nu ed to que sti on app ellant abo ut t he bloo d, he t old t hem tha t he t hou ght it g ot on his s hoe when he kic ked a t ra nsient in the mouth af

ter t he t r an sie nt ha d ju mpe d h im earli er in the even in g. At that po in

t, neither sus

pect had been han dcuff ed. Off ic er Haw kins wa s s

uspici ousof ap pe l l an t’s ex pl an ati on b ec au se

i t wa s n ot co nsist ent wit h his o bse rv at io ns o f ap pe llant ’s c lo t hing . A s a re su lt , b o t h o ffi cers dec ide d to take
so me Polaroid ph

ot ographs of the m

en. As Off ic er Perry was

pr epa ring t o p hot og ra ph t he t wo men, Off ic er Hawki ns, “ in an eff ort to li ghten the m

ood a little bit,” m

ade a sarcasti c comm

ent to t he ef

fect that the off

ic ers wanted

t he ph o t o gr ap hs in case the transi ent turned up dead. Upon heari ng Of fi cer Hawkins’ remark, appel

la nt looked at him

with a very seri ous look on hi s f

ace and said, “I di dn’t set out to kil l an yone toni ght.”6 Off ic er Pe rry t he n r et ur ne d t o his p at r o l ca rt o ch ec k h is MDT and to ask the police telety pe op er at or t o c heck t he da t abas e fo r p rio r invo lvement o n bot h sus pec t s. F inding no involvement of

ei th er su sp ec t, Of

f i cer Perry sens ed tha t som eth i ng wa s w rong. H e g ot out , walked
ar ou nd his car, and, w ith the aid of his f lashl ight, examined the surr ounding area . Lyin g near t he car’s right re ar t ire w as a bod y wrap ped in a green bl anket wi th bl ood o n i t. At t hat po int , ap pr o ximat ely twen ty minu t es aft er init ially e nc o un t er in g the susp ec t s, Offic er Pe rry re t ur ne d t o t he fr o nt o f his pa trol car and told appel

la nt that he ne ed ed t o sit in t he ba ck se at o f t he pa t r o l ca run t il t he y co uld f i gureout wha

t was g oin

g on. Appellant r espo nded by say ing “I didn’t kill a nybo dy” o r“I did n’t kill anyone to ni

ght.” Off ic er Perry then

han dcuff ed appella nt and pl aced hi m i n the b ack se at of hi s p atrol
car. Shortly

thereafter, Off

ic er Hawki

ns h andcuf fed Mi chael Fletcher and pl

aced hi m i n the b ack

of Hawk i n’ s pa trol c ar. Af ter the two suspects were t ransported to headqua rters, Detect iv

e Tracy Gerrish determi ned t he true na mesof the su sp ec ts a

nd l ea rn ed of the ex i stenc e of a l ocal traf f i c w arran t f or t he arres t of

appella nt. That warrant was later conf irm ed. A certif

ie d copy of the traf

fi c warrant was adm itted in to evi dence at the pretrial

heari ng. At 1:42 a.m., Detective Gerrish, Sergeant Kenn et h Cave t t , a nd Cr ime Scene Techni ci an Jerry Val dez e ntere d th e in t er vie w r o o m wh er e a pp ella nt ha d b ee n p lac ed
. T he ir i m med i ate pu rp ose wa s to exam

i ne ap pe l l an t f orbloo d and t o c ollect his clot hing as e vidence . At 1:48 a. m., while Det ect ive Ger rish wa s o ut of t he r oo m, t he fo llowing coll oquy too k pla

ce between appe l l an t an d S erge an t Ca v ett: A pp el l an t: Are we b ei

ng ch arged with s omethi

ng?7

Sgt. C av ett: I don’t know right now. A pp el l an t: If I’m n ot b ei n g c h arge d w i

th an y th i n g, h ow c om e Ih av e to t ur n in a ll of my clothes? Sgt. C av ett: W el

l , y ou’ reun der a rre st. A pp el l an t: Fo r w

h at? Sgt. Ca v ett: But you’ re just not being cha rg ed w ith anyt hingyet . . . I don’t kn ow when you wi ll be. A pp el l an t: Dam

n! I di dn’t thi nk wal kin g through an al

le yway was a cri me . A pp el l an t: So how soo n be fore I know I’m bei ng ch arged with s omethi

ng? Sgt. C av ett: It’s go nna b e a couple of hours. A pp el l an t: When can I get a lawyer ? [Em phasi s ad ded.] Sgt. Ca v ett: As

soon a s y ou get to a phone . . . [u

ni ntel l i gi bl e] . . . when

we get to a phone . . . . We’l

l gi ve y ou a phone. A pp el l an t: So, when are y ’all

going to r ead me m

y ri ghts? Sgt. C av ett: Uh, it ’ll be jus t a minu t e. As s o o n a s s o meb o dy c o mes in to t alk to you, th ey ’l

l do th at. Laterthat morni

ng, at6:41 a.m.—approxi ma tely fi ve h ours later—detectives b egan an elec t ro nically

re co rd ed int er view o f app ellant. Pr ior t o a ny questioni ng, appel la nt was gi ven his Miranda warnin

gs. Asked whether he understo od t hose rights, app ellant no dde d his hea d. Det ect ive Gerrish to ld a ppel la nt three tim

es that he did not have to talk to t he pol ic e. Whe n asked t o mak e t he dec ision, appe l l an

t stated, “ Yes , I wan

t to t al k.” Detect iv

e Gerrish t hen as ked , “S o yo u’r e wa iving your righ t t o an atto rney

and y ou want to get your si de of the story out?” Appel la nt then answered8

affir mat ive ly

by nodd ing his head up a nd do wn. Appe llant t hen ga ve a vo lunt ar y or al st at ement that
was si mul taneously enter ed int o a la ptop com puter. A t 9:25 a.m

., appe l l an

t si gne d a com

putergenerated co py of the statement in the presence of two civi li an wi tnesses. Detenti on and Arrest I n hi s f irst poin t o f error, appell

ant argues that the “trial

court erred in

admit t in g evi dence obtaine d as a re sult of t he illegal det ent ion and arrest of appell ant.” Appel

la nt cla im s that all of th e ev i den ce

con n ec ti n g h i m wi th t he cr ime w as o bt ain ed as a r es ult of his unlaw ful det ent ion. S pe cif ica lly, appe l l an

t say s tha t evi den ce there w as b l ood on hi s cl othi ng a nd b ody , hi s or al and written statements, and the wa

rrant to search h

is body wereal l f ru i ts of a n unlawfu l det ent ion and should have been

suppressed. N ot ever y enco unt er bet wee n an individual and a po lice officer is of co nst itu t iona l dimension; a p ol ic e off

ic e rmay a pp r o ac h a n ind ividua l wit ho ut pr o ba ble ca us e o rr ea so na ble
su sp i ci on to ask que sti ons or e

ven to request a s earch. SeeCalifornia v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 628 (19 91) ; Florida v. Royer , 460 U .S. 491, 4 97-98 (1983 ); Johnso n v. State , 912 S.W.2d 227, 235 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 95) ; Horton v . State , 16 S.W .3d 848 , 851 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 20 00, n o pet.). So lo ng as t he ind ividua l t o wh o m t he o ffic er put s t he qu est ions r emains free t o d isreg ar d t he que st ions and wal

k a wa y , th ere i s n o de ten ti on a nd no i ntr us i on u pon t he individual’s liber t y or right of pri v acy i m pl i ca ti n g th e F our th Am endm en t. See Unite

d States v. Mendenha ll , 446 U.S. 544, 554 (19 80) ; Haw

kins v. St ate , 758 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Tex. Crim . App. 198 8) . Ask ingf or ide nti f i ca ti on and pe r miss io n to sea rch a pers on does

not autom

ati cal l y mean that detenti

on has occ

urred. See9

Florida v. Bostick , 50 1 U. S. 429 , 43 5 (1 991 ); Hunter v. State , 95 5 S
. W. 2d 10 2, 10 5 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1997 ). Appellant’s and Of fi cer Perry’s

in itial encounter occurred late at ni ght in a dark al le

y wh ere P er r y k new c riminal act ivity was c ommo nplace . Whe n Per ry first saw t he t wo men in the l i gh ts of the patrol car, they l ooked surprised and wal

ked on down the a l le

y. The y the n started walking back t ow ar d P er ry when he st op ped wher e he ha d first obs er ve d t hem. I n t he ens uing
co nver sat ion, app ellant g ave implausible and inco nsist ent explana t ions in ac co unt ingfor t he men’s presence i n the al l ey . Perry kn

ew by the me n’s cl ot hi ng, tatt oos, and admi ssions that th ey wereb oth
mem bers of the Insan

e Gangster Cri

ps, a street gang whose membe rs o ft en en gaged i n cri mi nal activi ties. Most i

m porta ntl y , Perry obs erv ed f res h bl ood on appella nt’s trousers. Perry only

engaged t he men in co nver sat ion and made no sho w o f fo r ce o rau t ho r it y. T o t ha t po int , t his encounter can only be characterized as consensual, rai sin g no Four th Amen

dmen t co ncerns. Wh en Pe rry aske d f or p er m i ss i on to frisk a ppe llant and hi s compan ion, ev en though t he y co nse nt ed , t he sit ua t io n a r gu ab ly es ca l ate d i n to an i nve stigati ve detenti on. The purpose of an invest igat ivedetent ion i s to establi sh a pe rso n’s ident ity o r t o maint ain the status quo whi le an off ic er ob t ains m

ore i nf orma tion
. See Com er v. Stat

e , 754 S.W .2d 656 , 657 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1986 ). Pr o ba ble ca us e is no t r eq uir ed bu t r ea so na ble su sp icio n is r eq uir ed t o t emp o r ar ily de t ain an ind ivid ua l. See id.; Armstrong v. State , 966 S.W .2d 150 , 152 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 98, n o pet.). “Re as o na ble suspici on” exists if the o f f i cer h as speci

fi c articul abl e fac ts that, when comb in ed with rational

in feren ces f rom those fac

t s, wou l d l ead h i m to re as on ab l

y su sp ec t th at a particular pe rs on ha s e ng ag ed in o ris engagi ng i n cri m i na l acti vi ty. See Gar

cia v. State , 43 S.W.3d10

527 , 53 0 (T ex . Cr

i m . A pp. 200 1). Th e re as ona

bl e suspici on d ete rm i na ti on is ma de by cons ider ing t he totali ty of the c i rcum stan ces , id . Conduct in

g the t ot ali

ty of the circumstances d et er minat io n requires a bifurcated standard of rev ie w: (1) gi vin g almost t ot al deference to a tr ial cou rt ’s det er minatio n of hist or ical fact s and app licatio n of t he law t o fa ct que st ions that turn on cr ed i b i l i ty and dem eanor of the wi

tnesses, an

d (2) revie

win g de novo appl ic ation of l aw to fact questions that do no t t ur n u po n c r ed ibility and dem ean or, id .; Guzman

v. State , 95 5 S
. W. 2d 85 , 89 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 199 7) . Whe n t he t rial co ur t do es no t make e xplicit findings o f histo rical fac t , r eview o f the evi dence is ma de in t he li gh

t m os t fa vorab l e to the trial

court’s rul i ng. Carmo uche v. Sta te , 10 S. W.3 d 32 3, 327 -2 8 ( Te x. C rim. App . 2 000 ). Giving defer ence t o t he t rial co ur t ’s implicit finding of facts, we concl

ude de novo th at th es e f

ac ts w ere su f f i ci en t to gi ve ri se to rea son

ab l e suspici

on j us ti f y i n g a n i n v esti ga ti v e dete n ti on of appe l l an t. Dur ingt he inv es t ig at ive de t en t io n o f app ella nt , ad di t io na l fa ct s d ev elo pe d r ap id ly, culminating i

n pr obab l e ca use to arrest ap

pel l an t. Pr o ba ble cau se t o a rr est exist s whe n t he fact s and ci rcumstances withi

n the kn owledge o f t he ar r es t ing o ffice ran d o f wh ich he ha s r ea so na bly t ru st wo rt hy

i nf orm ati on woul d w arran t a re as ona

bl y pru de nt m an to be l i eve that a

pa rti cul ar p ers on hascom m i tted or is com m i ttin g a cri me. Beck v. Ohi

o , 379 U .S. 89, 91 (1964 ); Henry v. Uni ted States , 36 1 U. S. 98, 102 (19 59) ; Jones v. State , 565 S.W .2d 934 , 936 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1978 ). Wh en Perry f ri ske d app el

l an t, he n otice d tha

t appel l an t’s h eart was “po unding inc r ed ibly har d. ” App ellant to ld Perry that hi s n am e w asKei th D om i ng ue z, th at he h ad be en i n pri son f orburglary of

a hab itation, an

d that he had an

in ma t e I.D. Howe ve r , he sa id h is I
. D. wa s in h is walle t whi ch had been

lost or stole

n s ev eral day s ea rl i er. Appel

l an t’s c omp an

i on, Mi ch ael Fl etcher,1 A person comm

its an off ense i f h e i ntentiona ll y gi ves a f al se or fictitious n

am e, resi dence address, or date of

bi rth to a pea

ce of f i cer w ho has l awf ull y detai ne d tha t person . See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02(b)(2) (West 1994). A person comm its an off en s e if, wit h intent t o d ece ive, he kn o win gly

ma kes a f al se statemen

t t hat is ma terial t o a cr imi nal invest igat ion and makes t he st at ement to a peac e of

f i cer c onduc

tin g the i nv esti gati on. See id. § 37.08 (a)(1) (W est Sup p. 2002 ). 11 tol d Perry that h i s nam e was Jam es F arel e. A t thi s ti me, Of f i cer Hawkins ar r ive d t o as sis t P er r y. P er ry, us i n g th e c o mp ut er in the p at ro l car, at t empt ed t o c onfirm t he ident ity o f the men being detain ed buthe wasuna bl e to do so. It puzzl

ed Perry that he coul

d not conf

i rm appe l l an t’s i den ti ty because app ellant had a dmitt ed a pr ior felony con vi cti on. Thi s l ed Per ry to be l i eve the m

en ha d n ot giv en hi m thei r tr ue names . 1 Wh

en Hawki ns si gnal ed Per ry t hat he t hou ght app ellant might be get t ing ready t o fle e, Per

ry ’s su sp i ci on washe i gh

ten ed an d he a sked

the men i f the y wou l d c ons en

t to a search of thei r pockets
. T he y co nse nt ed , an d a pp ella nt cla imed o wn er ship o f t he wa llet fo un d in his companion’s pocket. Appel la nt sai d he h

ad obtain ed a new wal

le t. Ho wever, the “n

ew” wal le t contain ed old , worn

and tat tered papers. T he off icers observed m

ore blood on appell ant’s tro users, on hi s shoes, an

d a lar ge amo un t o n his ar m. App ellant c laimed he go t t he bloo d o n him earlier in t he evening when he kicke d a t ra nsient who had “jumpe d” him. T he co nver sat ion co nt inued a nd appe l l an t, r at he rine xp lica bly, sai

d “ I didn’ t set out to kil

l an y one toni ght.”

Officer P er ry, a gain us ing his co mputer, tried t o c onfirm t he ident ity o f the men det ained. When he w as u nsuc ces sful, he be ca me ev en

more sus pi cious. W

i th h i s f l ash l i ght, Pe rry be gan to inspe ct the a

rea w here he had f

irst
seen the me n. Al most i mm edi ately , he f ound a body

wrapped in a bl oodybl anket close to the pla

ce wh ereh e h

ad f i rs t se en th e m en . Pe rry th en to ld a ppel l an t he w oul d ha

ve to get in the p atrol

car. A pp ellant said “I didn’t kill any one tonight.” The m

en were h

andcuf fed an d taken to po li

ce headquart ers.12 Givingde f

er en ce to th e tr i al cou rt’ s i m pl i ci t f i n di n g of f ac ts and co nsider ing all of t he f ac ts and circum

stances, we ha ve ap plied t he bifurcated standard of rev ie w and f in d de novo that the

re was probable cause f

or appellant’s arrest. Soo n af ter rea chi ng po l i ce h

eadq uarters , off

i cers determi ned appella nt’s true identity and found ther e was an unserved warr ant au tho rizin g appe ll ant’s
ar re st. Evi dence

t hat t her e wa s fres h b loo d o n app ellant’ s clo t hing and bo dy, his o ra l and written st at ement s, a nd

the warrant is sued

for seizure of his body f

luids all resulted from appe ll ant’s la wful detent ion and arrest. Appellan t’s cla im t hat this

evi dence was

the frui t o f h is unl awful detention an

d arrest is wi

thout me rit. Appel

la nt’s f irst poin t o f error is

overruled. Request for C ounsel In his s ec o nd po int o f er r o r , ap pe llant as se r t s t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in ad m i tt ing evi dence obtained as a

resul t o f un la wful in terro gation conducted af

ter h e h ad i n v oke d h i s r i gh t to co un se l. Appel

la nt argues that hi s in

terr ogat ion vi

olated his Si

xth and Fourt eenth Am

endm ent rights. Appe llantdo es no t mentio n his Fifth Amendment right as imp leme nt ed by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 469-73 ( 19 66 )
. T he r igh t t o co un se l pr o vid ed by t he Six t h Ame nd men t at t ac he s o nly after t he in itiation of adv

ersaria l c rim in al pro ceedings;a s

us pe ct i n a cri m i n al i n v esti ga ti on h as n o Si xth Amendment righ

t t o t he ass is

tance of co uns el
. See Davis v. United States , 512 U.S. 452, 456-57 (1994 ); United Sta tes v. Go uveia , 467 U.S . 18 0, 1 88 ( 198 4); Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1967 ). Because n

o adversari al

crim in al proceedin

gs had b een i

ni tiated agains t ap pe llant at t he t ime h e m ade a n oral an d a wri tten sta tem en t, he h ad n o Si xth A men dm en t ri gh t to coun sel
. See Davis , 512 U.S. at 456- 57.2 SeeTex . Code Cri m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.22 , § 2 (W

est 197 9). 13 Even if appellant ’s cl aim had been b ased on his Miranda and statutory 2 r igh t s, it
wo uld be wit hou t merit . T he Su pr eme Co ur t held in Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 469-73 (1966 ), t ha t a s us pe ct su bje ct t o cu st o dia l int er r o ga t io n ha s t he r igh t t o co nsu lt wit h an at t or ney and to have counsel

pr ese nt dur ing qu est ioning, and t hat t he pol i ce m ust ex pl ai n th i s ri ght to hi m be f ore que st ioning begins. The r igh t t o co un se l es t ab lishe d in Miranda was one of a s eries of saf eguards
ma ndated that were not in them

sel ves ri ghts prot ected by

the constitution b

ut were in stead meas

ures to i n su reth at th e F i f th Amendment ri ght agai

nst comp ul sory sel f -i ncri m i na tion wasprotected. Davis , 512 U.S . at 457 ; Michigan v. Tucker , 417 U.S. 433, 443-44 (1974) . Law enforcement offi cers must immed iat ely

cea se q ues t ioning a s usp ect who clear ly asser t s his right t o ha ve co unse l pre sent dur ing custodial i nterroga tion
. Ed wards v. Arizona , 451 U.S . 477 (198 1). “However , if the suspect ’s st at ement is not an una mbiguo us o r u nequ ivoca l req ues t for co unse l, t he o ffi cer s have no obl i ga

ti on to stop quest ioni

ng hi m.” Davis , 512 U.S. at 461. A me re referen ce to a lawy

er or an amb iguous or equi vocal referen ce to a lawy

er be f ore or dur ingi

nterroga tion i s n ot suf f i ci en t to in voke an accuse d’s

ri ght to coun sel
. See Davis , 512 U. S. at 455 -5 7 ( “Maybe I sho uld t alk to a lawyer” insuffici ent ); Dinkins

v. State , 894 S.W.2d 330, 350-52 (Tex. Crim . App. 1995) (“May be I sh ould t alk to some o ne” insuffi cient) ; Russell v. State , 727 S.W.2 d 573, 575- 76 (T ex. Crim. App. 19 87) ( accused ’s que st ion whe t her officer s t hou ght presence of a n a ttorney ne ces sary

; i ns uf f i ci en t); Collins

v. State , 72 7 S
. W. 2d 56 5, 56 8 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 19 87 ) ( ac cu se d’ s inq uir i ng w he ther h e w oul

d g et a n attor n ey appoi n ted wh en h e g ot to Ho ust on; insuff

icient); see also Guidry

v. State , 9 S. W.3 d 13 3, 143 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 19 99);14

Dewberry v. State , 4 S.W.3d735, 747 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 99) ; Ethridge v . State , 903 S.W.2d 1, 17- 18 (Tex . Cri

m . App. 1994 ). In this case, af ter appell ant’s arrest and wh

il e he w as in an i

nterrogat ion room, but
over f i v e h our s b ef oreh e w as

i n ter rog ate d, a

n of f i cer c am e i n to th e room , not to i

n ter rog ate appe l l an t, b ut to obtain appell

ant’s bloo dy cl

ot hes. Appel

la nt, in conversati on with the of

fi cer, asked t he officer , “When c an I get a lawyer ?” This q ues t ion is t he bas is for app ellant ’ s claim tha t he requestedcounsel

bef ore he was in

terro gated. Imm

edi ately bef ore he was i

nterrogat ed

and a fte r he had been readvi sed of hi s Miranda righ t s, ap pe llant sa id, “Y es , I wa nt t o t alk ” a nd affir mat ive ly
wa ive d h is r igh t t o co un se l.

The ev i de nc e supp orts th

e tri al cou rt’ s i m pl i ed f i nd i ng tha t ap pe l l an

t did n ot un amb igu o us ly

and u ne qu iv oc ally requ est co unse l befor e o r d ur ing his inter ro gat ion. Having considered

the tot al ity

of the ci rcumstances sh

own by the record and giv

in g deferen ce to t he trial
cou rt’ s impli ed fi

ndi ng of f acts, we conclude i

ndepen dently and de novo tha

t ap pe l l an t did n ot un amb igu o us ly

an d u ne qu ivo ca lly as k fo rco un se l be fo r e o rdu r ing his in t er r o ga t io n. Ap pe llant did not exercis e hi s righ

t t o counsel. A

ppel la nt’s second poi

nt of error is overrul ed.

The j udgme

nt is aff irm ed.

__________________________________________15 Carl E. F. Dall

y, Jus tice Be fo r e C hie f Ju st ice Abo us sie , Ju st ice s Y ea ke l an d D ally * Af fi rmed File d: April 18, 2002 Do No t Publis

h

* Bef ore Carl E. F. Da l l y , Judg e (reti

red), C ourt of Cr

i m i na l Appeal s, si ttin g by ass i gnm en t. See Tex . Gov’ t Code A

nn . § 74.00 3(b ) (We st 1998 ).