Opinion filed Ap ril 23 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 88 -CR

____ ____ __ JULIO C ESA R S OTELO , A ppellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 238th Distric t Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR 32394

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
J ulio Cesar So t el o p l ea d ed guilty and wa s convicted of

the third-deg ree felony

offe nse of po sse ssi on

of a c ontr oll e d su

bs tanc e – c oc a ine we ig hin g on e g ra m or mor e bu t le ss tha

n fo ur g ra ms. The trial c ourt assesse d punish m en t at confine ment for two y ear s, but the court suspende d the imp os iti on

of the se nte nc e and

pla c e d a pp e lla nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on f o r f ive y e ars . We a ff

ir m. Appellant appeals from the t rial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He pr esents two issues in which he a

rg ues that the trial c ourt abused its d i s cr et i o n beca use the off

icer had no2

rea sonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which appe llant was a pa sseng er a nd beca use the off

icer had no re asonable suspicion to stop or detain appellant a fter he g ot out of the vehicle

. Police may s t o p and brie fly detain per sons suspected of criminal ac tivity

when the circ umstances objec tively support a re asonable suspicion that t h e p er s o n detained is, ha s been, or

so on wi ll b e e ng a g e d in c ri min a l a c tiv ity or , s tate d a no the r w ay , a

re a so na ble su sp ic ion

that so me activity out of the ordin ar y i s occur ring or has oc curr ed, some sug g estion to connec t the detained person with the unusual activity , and some indication that the activity is r elated to a cr ime. Davis v. Sta te , 9 47 S.W. 2d

24 0, 24 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); se e als o Florida v. Roye r , 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1 98 3) ; Te rry

v . O hio , 3 92 U. S. 1 (1 96 8) ; J oh ns on v . S

tate , 912 S.W .2d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 95 ); Ma y s v . S tate , 726 S.W .2d 937 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Reasonable suspicion require s an of fi c e r t o h a ve sp e c if

ic art ic ula ble fact s w hic h, tog e the r w ithratio na l in fe re nc e s f ro m th os e fa c ts, would rea sonably

war rant the intrusion on the fr eedom of the detaine e for fu rt her inve stigation. Com e r v. S

tate , 754 S.W .2d 656, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Although a trial court’ s findings of fac t f r o m a s u p p r e s s io n h e ar in g mu s t b e g iv e n a lm o s t to ta l d e f e r e n c e , th e d e te r

mi n a ti on of

rea sonable suspicion is to be re viewed de novo. Gu zm an v . S tate , 9 55 S.W. 2d

85 , 8 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997). At the he ari ng on

the mot ion

to s up pr e ss, on ly

on e wi tne ss t e sti fi e d: O ff ic e r M ic ha e l N ic ke l. The re cord shows that Office r Ni ckel wa s dispatched to a “ disturbance ” at a residenc e. When he

arr ive d, he wa s a dv ise d that the ins tig a tin g pa rt y ha d le ft , h e a de d e a stb ound in a re d D od g e du a lly pickup that had pur

ple flame s on it and a we lder in t h e b ac k

. Of fi cer Nickel located a pickup matching that descr iption at a res i d en ce about five blocks f rom the sce ne of the disturbance . The pickup started to pull awa y as Off icer Nickel a pproac hed, but Offi ce r Ni ckel pulled in behind the p ic k u p an d tu r n e d o n h is li g h ts

. O f

f ic e r N ic k e l te s ti f

ie d th a t h e s to p p e d th e p ic k u p to contac t the instigating party in the disturbance . Acc ording to Office r Nicke l, appellant, who wa s a passe ng er in the pickup, jumped ou t and we nt toward the house . Appellant ig nored the office r’s ve rbal

c omm and s to sto p a

nd c ome ba c k, so Of

fi c e r Ni c ke l wa lke d up and pe rs on a lly c on ta c te d a

pp e lla nt, who was try

ing to hide in f

ront of another vehicle in the driveway

. Offic er N ickel dire cted a ppellant back to the pa

trol car , but appellant aga in attempted to g o another direc tion. Office r Nicke l then g rabbe d appellant a

nd led him to the front of the police car. Offic er Nickel t old appellant to sit down3

on the fr o n t o f t h e poli ce c ar a nd to stay there , but appellant g ot “antsy ” and sta rted looking and

mov ingaro un d. B e c a

us e of sa fe ty c on c e rn s du e to a pp e lla nt’ s b e havio r, Of

fi c e r N ic ke l de c ide d to pat app e lla

nt d ow n f or we a po ns . A t th a t ti me , a

pp e lla nt r e a c he d into h is p oc ke t and pu lle d o ut a plastic bagcontaining a white substanc e. Offic er N ickel seized the ba g , conducte d a fie ld test on the substance, a

nd then ar rested a ppellant for posse ssing c ocaine

. Appellant first a

rg ues that, base d on the evi d ence adduce d at the hea ring , Offic er N ickel lacke d rea sonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which appe llant was a pa sseng er be cause there was
n o r e a s o nto b e li e v e an y

o f th e o c c u p ants of t he v e h ic le w e r e inv o lv e d in c r im in a l a c ti v it

y . We disag ree . Offic er N ickel wa s dispatched to a r esid en t i al d i s t urbanc e and w as informe d that the instigating party

had fle d the sce ne h ea d i n g ea s tbound. Office r Nicke l was g iven a de tailed descr iption of the pickup and was able to locate it just five blocks from the sce ne. We hold that Offic er N ickel had r easona ble suspicion to believe that a n occupa nt of the pickup ha d been involved in s ome so rt

of c ri min a l a c tiv ity

and that he wa s th e re fo re jus tif ie d in sto pp ingthe pic ku

p to investigate. Se e Coo

pe r v . S tate , 889 S.W .2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, no pet.). Appellant’s first issue is overrule d. Ap pe lla nt n e xt ar g ue s th a t O ff

ic e r Ni c ke l la c ke d r e a so na ble su sp ic ion

to s top or

de ta in appellant when he g ot out of the pickup and attempted to w alk toward the residenc e. Ap p el l ant contends that the te stimony showed that the dr iver, not the pa sseng er, of the pickup was the per son who had be en involved in the disturbanc e. The rec ord re veals, howeve r, that Offic er N ickel testified that h e d i d n o t know at the time which oc cupant or occupa nts of the pickup we re involved in the disturbance . Thus, it was rea sonable for Offic er N ickel to suspect that a ppellant had be en involved in the disturbance and that the disturbance was criminal in nature

. We hold that Office r Nicke l was jus tif ie d in sto pp ingand

de ta ini nga

pp e lla nt f or inv e sti g a tiv e purp os e s. Appellant also a sserts that t h e pat- down sea rch w as not authorized. We disag ree . During a lawf ul investigative detention, an office r may conduct a

limit ed sea

rch f or we apons whe re the office r re asonably

believes that his safety

or that of o t h ers is in dang er. Te rry , 3 9 2 U

. S

. a t3 8

. In thi s c a se , O ff

ic e r N ic ke l te sti fi e d that h e de c ide d to pat a pp e lla nt d ow n f

or we a po ns be c a

us e appellant’ s actions ca

used the off

icer to be conc erne d for his safe ty

. Appellant “c ouldn’t sit st ill and

was re al fidg ety .” Of

fice r Nicke l testified that he “w anted to make sure [appellant] di dn’t have any4

wea pons to use ag ainst us” “if he decide d to assault us.” W e h o l d t h at t h e protective pat-down
sear ch of appellant f

or we apons wa s justified. Se e Car mo uc hev . S

tate , 1 0 S. W. 3 d 3 2 3 , 3 2 9

- 3 0 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2000). The se cond issue is overr uled. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

J I M R. W RI GHT

CH I EF JUSTI CE
April 23, 2009 Do not publish. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., McCall, J ., and Strang e, J.