### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-06-00729- CR

Bill y J oe Ham ilt on , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT OF COK E COUNTY , TEXAS NO. 06- 4123 , HO NORAB LE ROY BLAI R , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
After he unsucc essfully

moved to suppress evide nce of marihuana

discovere d by

law enfor ceme nt during a wa

rra ntless vehicle se arc h incident to a tra ffic stop, B illy J oe Hamil to n

p leade d no contest to a c harg e of posse ssing a usable quantity of marihuana in an amount of two ounc es or less, a Class B misdeme anor, a nd was c onvicted. See Tex. He alth & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a ), (b )( 1) (We st 2 00 3) . In h is s ol e is su e , H a mil ton c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghis motion to s uppress be cause there was no proba b l e cause to justi fy

the sea rch. See U. S. Co ns t. amend. IV. On this rec o rd , we conclude that the sea rch w as justified by

probable cause that Ha mil ton ’s ve hic le c on ta ine d e vid e nc e of a c ri me and

a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.Hamilton and Villarre al wer e ea ch cha rg ed with mari h uana posse ssion and filed a joint 1 motion to s uppress; thus, the trial cour t’s finding s ref

ere nce “ defe ndants.” Offic er Fr asier testified, “Going with the movement that I saw as they stopped and a s the 2 ve hic le c a me to a

sto p, the fa c t th a t th e re wa s a c ig are tte lig hte r in the re and bo th of the m te lli ngme 2 BACK GR OUND Th e pe rt ine nt f

a c ts a re summa

ri zed in t he t ri al c ourt ’s de ta ile d f ind ing s o f f

a c ts
co n ce rn i n g t h e e v i d en ce p re s en t edat t h e s u p p re s s i o nh ea ri n g:

! Depa

rtment of Public Safety office r Scott Fra sier stopped Ha milton and a co-w orker , Roge r Vi lla rr e a l, “for

speeding76 in a 70 mph are a zone on US - 277 in Coke County , Texas.” 1
! “De fenda

nts were making suspicious, unex plained movements in the fr ont of the vehicle as Offic er F rasier

stopped them.”
! “De fenda

nts had not located insura nce papers by

the time the vehicle was stopped a nd offe red no e x planation for sa id movements when que stioned on the stand.”
! “Upon stopping the vehicle , the driver [Vil larre al] stepp ed o u t of the ve hicle at of fice r’s reque st, a nd office r observe d a marihuana seed on the driver’ s seat. Offic er knew the se ed t o b e a m ar i h u an a

s e e d f r o m h i s t r a i n i n g an d e x p e r i e n c e . T h e o f f i c e r ’ s a b i l i t y t o i d e n t i f

y a marihuana

seed w as not questioned.”
! “As proof

of i n s u ra nce w as beingprovided fr om the cente r console, of fice r obser

ved a cig are tte lighter

on the front c enter

console in plain view.”
! “Of

fice r aske d the passeng er, Mr . Hamilton, who smoked, and wa s told that neither he nor the driver did. He then a sked def

endant Villar

rea l wh o s m o k ed and was ag ain told that neither did.”
! “Of

fice r testified that the de fenda nts appea red ne rvous.”
! “B elieving that the defe ndants’ movements in the front of the truc k while beingpulled over, coupled with the plain view of the mar ihuana se ed an d a ci gare tte lighter when no one a dmi tte d s mok ing , a

nd g ive n th e ne rv ou s a

pp e ara nc e of the de fe nd ants pr e se nte d p ro ba ble cause that a crime was being committ ed, Officer Fr asier searc hed the vehicle. Of fice r F raiser e mph a size d th a t no on e thi ng , b ut t he tot a lity

of the c ir c umstan ces gave r ise to p ro ba ble cause .” 2they don’t smoke and the f act that I saw a marihuana

seed in the f

ront driver ’s seat, Ibelieved I had probable cause to believe [there] was pr obably marihuana

in that car .” 3 ! “The office r found a sm all amount of marihua na re sidue on the kick plate of the fr ont door, marihuana

in the console in a c ontai n er , an d marihuana inside two Sty

rofoam cups in the cente r console.”
! “De fenda

nts put on evidence that a fe llow worker who sometimes rode in the vehicle smoked cig are ttes, a ca

rton of which w ere in the back of the truck.”
! “De fend an ts p u t o ne v id e n c e th a t a c ig ar e tt e li g h te r

mi g h t h a v e b e e nu s e d

to h e a t a f itting used in their wor

k, an explanation which the Court finds unconvinc ing.”
! “The Court found the testimony of Off icer Fr asier c onvincing and truthful” and that “O ffice r Fr asier ha s more than 15 y ear s of law e nforc ement ex p er i en ce a nd an excellent re putation . . . for ve rac ity

and deta il.”
! “ Th e Court

fo un d th e te sti mony

of de fe nd ants re g ard ing the us e of the c ig are tte lig hte r a s a workingtool not convincing.”
The trial c ourt co n cl uded that “( 1) fur tive movements by

defe ndants while being pulled over, ( 2) a ma

rihuana seed on the driver’ s seat in plain view, ( 3) a c iga rette lig hter on the middle console in plain view, a nd (4) ne rvous behavior by defe ndants during the t e mp o rar y detention fo r a lawf ul t ra ff ic sto p” “ tog e the r, loo kin g a t th e tot a lity of the c ir c ums tan ces, di d g ive ri se to probable cause to conduct the se arc h.”

DI SCU SSIO N

We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standar d of re view, g iving a lmost t otal defe renc e to a tria l court’s de termination of historical f acts a nd
re v iewing de novo the c ourt’s application of the law. See W iede v . State, 2 1 4 S. W. 3 d 1 7, 24-254

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Ma x we ll v . S tate , 7 3 S
. W
. 3 d

2 7 8 , 2 8 1 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 2 00 2) ; Guz man
v . S tat e , 9 55 S.W. 2d

85 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 1997 ). I f th e rulingon the mot ion

to s up pr e ss i s
rea sonably

supported by

the re cord and is corr ect under any theory of l aw a pplicable to the c ase, w e must uphold t h e ru l i n g. State v. Stee lman , 93 S.W .3d 102, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Ro me ro v . S

tate , 800 S.W .2d 539, 543-44 (Te x . Crim. App. 1990)). On c e a de fe nd ant pr ov e s tha t a sea rc h oc c ur re d with ou t a war

ra nt, the burd e n s hif

ts to the State to prove the r easona bleness of the sear ch. R u s s e l l v . S t ate , 717 S.W .2d 7, 9-10 (T ex . Cr im
. Ap p. 19 86 ) ( e n b anc ); W hite v. State, 20 1 S. W.3 d 2 33 , 2 40 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2006, pet ref

’d). I n deter

mining the rea sonablene ss of a sear ch or seizure, the actions of police are jud g e d by ba lanc ing the ind ivi du a l’ s pri va c y int e re st a g a ins t th e State ’s int e re st i n la w e nf or c e me nt. Gu tie rre z v . S tate , 2 21 S.W. 3d

68 0, 68 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); Sc he ne k l v . S tate , 30 S.W .3d 412, 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (c iting De law ar e v . Pro us e , 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979)). The balanc ing test is utilized to ensure that an individual’s F ourth Amendment rig hts a re not subje cted to “a

rbitrar y invasions at the unfe ttered discr etion of off icer s i n t he fie ld.” Gu tie rre z, 221 S.W .3d at 685; Schene kl , 3 0 S. W.3 d at 41 3; se e Pr ou se , 440 U.S. at 654.

The “ automobile exception” per mits officers to c onduct a wa rra ntless searc h of a motor vehicle if the officer has probable c ause to be lieve that the ve hicle conta ins evidence of a crime. Chambers v. Marone y , 3 99 U.S. 42, 48 -4 9 ( 19 70 ); Po we ll v . S tate , 898 S.W .2d 821, 827 (Tex. Crim. App.1994). The rationale for this exception is twofold: (1) “ the inhere nt mobili ty of automobiles cre at es ci rcumstances of suc h exigenc y that, as a pr actica l nece ssity , rig orous
e nf or c e me nt of the wa

rr ant re qu ir e me nt is imp os sib le ,” and (2 ) “ the e xpe c tatio n of priv acy wi th5

respe ct to one’s a

utomobile is signific antly less than t hat relating to one’s home or office .” So uth Dakota v. O

pperman , 4 28 U.S
. 36 4, 36 7 (1 97 6) . A c c or din g ly , w he re the re is p ro ba ble c a us e to
s ea rc h a vehic le, exigent c ircumstance s to justi fy a wa rra ntless searc h are not require d. S tat e v. Guzman , 959 S.W .2d 631, 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). I f probable cause justifies the sear ch of a lawf ully stopped vehicle , it just ifies t he search of ever y part of the vehicle and its contents that may
conce al the objec t of the sea rch. Un ite d S

tates v . R os s , 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982). Probable c ause to s ea rch or arr est exist s when re asonably trustworthy

fac ts and
c ir c ums tanc e s w ith in t

he kn ow le dg e of

the of fi c e r o n th e scen e wou ld le a d p e rs on s o f r e a so na ble prudenc e to believe that an instrumentality of a c rime or e vidence perta ining to a c rime will be found. Gu tie rre

z, 221 S.W .3d at 685 ; E

strad a v . S tate , 154 S.W .3d 604, 6 0 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Mc

Nai ry v . S tate , 8 3 5 S. W. 2 d

1 0 1 , 1 0 6 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); W as hi ngton v . S

tate , 66 0 S. W.2 d 5 33 , 5 35 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ); Ba rb e r v . S tate , 611 S.W .2d 67, 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). We apply

the “totality

of the c ircumstances” test for deter mining proba

ble ca use for a
war rantless sea

rch. Kot hev . S tate , 1 5 2 S
. W
. 3 d

5 4 , 6 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Florida v. Roy er , 4 60 U. S. 4 91 , 5 00 (1 98 3) ); see Te rry v. Ohi o , 392 U.S. 1, 19-21 (1968). The totality of the circ umstances a

naly sis is fact-spec ific. See Kothe , S.W .3d at 63. The trial court expli citly found Offic er Fr asier cre dible and conclude d that, based on the totality

of the c ircumstance s, Fra sier had pr obable c ause to sea rch the vehicle, spe cifica lly rely ing on the combination of (1) furtive moveme nts made by defe ndants in the vehicle a s they wer e being stopped, (2) a

marihuana

seed on the driver’ s seat in pla in vie w, (3) a cig are tte lighter in plain view
on the fr on t c on so le , w ithde fe nd ants c la imi ngtha t ne ith e r o f t

he m sm ok e d, and

(4 ) defend ants ’6

nervous be havior duri n g t h e stop. W e ag ree that these fa cts constitute probable cause that the vehicle c ontained evide nce of crime. I n Ad am s v . S tate , 634 S.W. 2d

78 5, 79 3- 94 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 82 , n o p e t.) , th is Court held that probable cause exis ted to justify a war rantless vehicle sear ch wher e an office r saw marihuana

seeds in the dr iver’s seat during a traff ic stop. I t he ld that the sear ch—which unc overe d nine bag s of marihua

na in a c losed ice cooler in the backse at of the car —was rea sonable beca

use the office r had o b s erved the marihua na see ds in plain view, g iving him proba ble ca use to sear ch the vehicle, a nd that the driver

did not have an e x pectation of privacy in his ice cooler
. Id. S i m i l ar l y, in Gillard v. State, the B e a umo nt Court of Ap pe a ls he ld that a po lic e of fi c e r h a d p ro ba

ble c a us e to
sear ch a ve hicle whe n the offic er sa w leaf y m ar i h u an a in pl ain view dur ing a routine traf

fic stop. 662 S.W .2d 34, 36 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 1983, no writ).

Her e, Of fice r F rasier

not only witnesse d

a ma r ih u a n a seed in plain viewin the driver’ s seat, but witnessed f

urtive movements duringthe stop, nervous be havior, a nd dubious denials that the vehicle occupa

nts use d a cig are tte lighter in plain view to smoke. See United States v. Fishel , 467 F.3d 855, 856 ( 5th Cir. 2006) (during traf fi c s t o p , s earch of ve hicle justified by suspect’s
ne rv ou s be havio r c omb ine d w ithoth e r f a c tor s) ; Sm ith v . S

tate , 5 42 S.W. 2d

42 0, 42 1- 22 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1976) (f

urtive movements or ges t u re s ar e valid indicia of mens r ea a nd, althoug h alone insufficient, whe n combined with other suspicious cir cumstance s, may g ive rise to proba

ble ca use); Cun nin gh am v . S

tate , 11 S.W .3d 436, 440 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (f inding small amount of marihuana in vehicle, toge ther with fur tive g estures of

occupa nt, ga ve police of

fice r pr ob a ble c a us e to se arc h en tir e ve hic le , be lie vin g it c on ta ine d la rg e r q ua nti tie s o f m ari hu ana ); but7

se e W ie dev . S tate , 157 S.W .3d 87, 98 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2005, pet. re f’d) (fur tive g esture a lone, made while pe rson is stopped for tra ffic of fense , does not establish probable cause for se arc h). Hamilton attempts t o eq u at e this case to W ilk ins v . S tate , 829 S.W .2d 818 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

19 92 , n o p e t.) , in

wh ic h th is C ourt he ld that la w e nf or c e me nt l a c ke d p ro ba

ble
cause to search a pornogr aphy viewing booth and violated the de fenda nt’s expectation of privac y wher e the sear ch was based solely upon hear ing moaning noises from within the booth. W ilkins is
c le arl y dis tin g uis ha

ble fr om t his c a se , w hic h involv e s a wa rr antl e ss s e arc h und e r t

he “ a uto mob ile
e xce pti on ,” a

mari hu ana

se e d in pla in v ie w, and

su sp ic iou s b e havio r b y

the ve hic le oc c up ants
. CO NC LU SION Ba sed on this rec ord, we ag ree with the trial court that Of fice r F rasier ’s vehicle sear ch
wa s su pp or te d b y pr ob a ble c a us e and wa s r e a so na

ble . A c c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt di d n ot e rr

in denying Hamilton’s motion to suppress. We ove rrule Hamilton’s issue and af firm the trial c ourt’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 31, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh