### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-99-00411-CR
Genar o Ver a Estrada, Appel lant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLIAMSON COUNT Y, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 99-173-K277, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. B ENDER, JUDGE PRESIDING

A few m in utes af ter 10:0 0 a.m . on Ja

nua ry 20, 199 9, app el

l an t Genaro Vera

Estrada
was dri vi ng nor thon In te rs tate 35 wh en h e w as sto pp ed b y Te x as De pa rtm en t of Pu b l i c S af ety Troo per Chanc e Co lli

ns for faili ng t o d isplay a fro nt li

cense pl ate. This routin

e traff ic stop began

a ch ain of even

ts that culm

in ated two hours la

ter in the d i scovery of c ocai ne secreted i n a ppel l an t’s c ar. A j ur y f oun d a pp el l an t gui l ty of p os sess ing mor e t han 40 0 gr ams o f co caine w ith int ent t o d eliver and
assess ed pun i sh men t at i m prison men t f orforty y ears and a $250,0 00 f

i ne . SeeTe x . H ea

l th & Sa f ety Co de Ann
. § 4 81
. 11 2 ( We st Su pp . 20 00 )
. We will a ffir m.

Appe llantfi

rst co nt ends t he dist rict co ur t er re d by ove rr ulinghi s motion to suppress evi dence. In revi

ewi ng thi s contention, we def

er to the trial

court ’s f actual determ

in ations b ut review de novo the c ourt’s a

ppl i cation of the l aw to the f

acts. See Guzman v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 892

(T ex. Cri m . App. 1997 ). Bec aus e the di stri ct courtdid n

ot ma ke expl ic it f in din gs of f act, we review t he evidenc e in the li

ght most fav

orable to the court ’s rul

in g and ass ume the court ma

de fi ndi ngsthat
aresuppor ted by the recor d and buttr ess i ts conc l usi on. See Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 327-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The en tire enco unter between appel la nt and the polic e was vi deotaped by a c ame r a mo un t ed in Coll in s’s patrol vehi

cl e. The t ape was admit t ed in evide nce a nd we hav e vi ewed i t as part o f our review of the record. Af ter appella

nt stopped, T roo per Coll in s wal ke d up to his c ar an d s po ke t o him through t he dr iver’s side w indo w. The officer not iced a license p late lyi ng o n t he she lf

beh in d the rear seat and appel

la nt confi rmed that i t wa s th e p l ate t hat belong ed o n t he fro nt of t he vehicle. Co lli ns also noticed powdered carpetcl ea ne rco ve r ing t he ba ck se at an d r ea rflo o ro f t he ca r . An a ir fresh ener was hanging fr om t he re ar view mirro r. Co lli ns t est ifi ed t hat he con si

de red i t un usual f or a pe rs on to s

pread car pe t cle an er t hr o ug ho ut a c ar an d t he n le av e it t he r e. He ad de d t ha t in his experience, ca

rpet cl ea ne r an d ai r f res he ne rs were c om

monl y us ed by dru g c ouri ers to hi dethe odor of thei r contraband. Appe llantwas stopped on the im proved shoul der

of the i nterstate high

way only a few feet fro m passing traffi

c. Coll in s asked appe l l an t to s tepouts i de

an d j oi n h i m on th e g ra ss y area to t he righ t of appe l l an t’s ca r. W hi l e C ol lin s spoke to appell ant, hi s partner, Tro oper Mich ael Kl in e, wa tched the othe r occ upa nt of the ca r, R oge l i o Ga rdu no. Appe llanthad a Calif

or nia driv er’s license, but t he ca r he was dri vi ng was registered in Tex as . A ppe l l an t tol d C ol l i

ns tha t the ca r b el ong ed to afri end wh o was in Me xic o . Ap pe llant sa id he wa s livin g in Da llas , bu t ha d b ee n in Austin l ooki ng fo r w or k fo r a co uple o f days. Aske d by3

Co lli ns wher e he ha d sp ent the ni ght, appell

ant said Dallas. He told the off ic er t hat he and Gar duno left Da llas at 3: 00 a. m. t o dr ive t o Au st in, ar r iving at 6: 00 a. m. Ap pe llant sa id t he jo b in Au st in provedunac ce

pta bl e, a nd he an d G ard un o were retu

rni ng to Dal la s. Appe llant did no t kn o w h is address in Dallas . Qu es t io ne d s ep ar at ely, Ga r du no t o ld t he o ffice r s t ha t he an d a pp ella nt lived in Au st in and were goi

ng to Dal las t o lo ok for wo rk . B ot h app ellant a nd Ga rd uno app ear ed t o be
ex t r eme ly nervous . On t he video t ape , C ollins can be hear d r emark ing t hat eac h was “shak ingli ke a l eaf .” Co lli

ns wen t to hi s pa

trol ca r a n d c al l ed f or a ca n i n e u n i t. H e th en re tur n ed to app ellant and as ked him i f he had a ny dru gs in t he ca r. Appe llant’s r esp ons e is no t aud ible on t he vi deotape. Coll

in s then as ked appella nt for permi

ssion to search the ca

r. Appella

nt repli ed, “What ?” The officer re pea t ed t he qu est ion and t hen as ked , “D o yo u mind if I look?” A

ppella nt responded, “No, go ahead.” At t hi s point, appellan t had been stop ped for about elev en m in utes. Co lli ns began to search the i

nterior of the car. He f

ound a can of

carpet freshener an

d, in t he glo ve co mpar t ment, a r ubber ring or plug that “went i n the gas pi

pe.” The bac

k seat was loose. Co lli ns testifi ed that he kn

ew that drugs were often conceal ed under t he bac k se at or in the g as t ank of an au tom ob i l e. Col

l i n s was un ab l e to o pen

th e tr un k of th e c ar wi th the k ey . Appel

la nt opened it f or hi m . The trunk c ontai

ne d laun dry deterge nt an d a b ottle of

bl each. In li ght o f appellant’s cla im that he and Gardun

o had go ne to Au sti

n f or wor k, C ol l i ns consi de red i t si gn i f i ca nt th at n o tool s or work cl othes were i

n the ca r. De pu ty Sh er iff Jo hn S t an ley a nd his dog, Arco, ar riv ed j ust over twenty m

in utes after app ellant was st op ped . S t anley te st ifi ed t hat he wa s a c er t ifi

ed d og handl er with 800 hou rs of4

traini ng. He wa s a certif y i n g of f i ci al wi th b oth the sta te a nd na ti ona l as soc i ati ons f or pol i cepa trol and na r co t ics do gs . St an ley ha d b ee n Will ia ms on County’s cani ne h andl er si nce 1994, an

d had trained an d c er t if

i ed si x d og s for narc ot ics detect ion. Arco had been purchase d by the sheriff ’s dep ar t ment in

Septembe

r 1998, tr ai

ned b y Stanl ey , and certif

ie d as a narcotics

dog in De cem

ber 1998. On a previ ous o cc as io n, Ar co ha d d isc o ve r ed mar ihu an a in the ga s ta nk of a veh i cl e. B y the ti me of appellant’s suppressi

on heari ng, Arco had discovered narcotics on three additional

occasions . Stanley testifi ed that Arco had nev

er fal sel y a le rted. Sta n l ey h ad trai n ed A rc o to a l er

t to t he pr es en

ce of dr ug s b y si tti n g. A rc o f ai l ed to alertas he was fi

rst walked around appel

la nt’s car. But he i

mm edi ately satwhen S t anley op ened t he right re ar do or . Allow ed t o e nt er t he r ear of t he ca r, Arco bega n t o bite the b ack s ea t wh er e it abutted the d

oor. Stanley

considered this

to be an ot her al ert, and att rib

uted Arco’s bi

ting (rather than si tt in g) to his tr aining as a pat ro l do g. At t his po int, Co lli ns t old app ellant t hat beca use t he dog had alerted to the car, the officers had pro babl e cause to bel

i ev e narcoti cs w ere pr

ese nt. Appel la nt had now been stopp ed for t hi

rty mi nutes. The officer s co nt inued t o s ear ch t he back seat area, tr unk, and u nderside o f appellant’s
car wit hou t suc ces s. At 10:50, appell ant and Gardun

o were permi

tt ed to re en ter th e c ar . A

pp el l an t, le d by Deputy Stanl

ey and f oll owed by Troo per Coll

in s, then dr o ve t o a s er vic e s t at io n in Ge orget ownwhere

the se arc h wasres um ed at a bou t 11: 15 a .m . A

t 11: 50, Col

l i ns f oun d f our packages of cocai

ne i nsi de t he right rear do or o f appel lan t’s car. Appell

ant was advised of h

is ri ghts, af ter w hi ch he tol d C ol l i ns tha t he ha d gotte n th e c ocai ne i n Mex i co.5 Appe llantconcedes that

the in itial stop o f h is car was lawful . He conten ds, h owev er, that ins tead of is sui

ng a traff ic ticket and perm i ttin g hi m to be on his wa y , the of f i cers de t ain ed him withoutre as on ab l e s

us pi ci on to invest igat e t he po ssibili t y that he wa s t r an sp o r t ing dr ug s. A t r affic stopi s an alogous to a tem

porary i nv esti gati ve deten tion
. See Ber

kemer v. McCar

ty , 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984 ). Su ch a d et ent ion may last no lo nger t han is nece ssar y to effect uat e t he pu rp os e o f the stop. See Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983 ); Davis v . State , 9 47 S .W. 2d 2 40, 243 -4 5 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 199 7) . Ap pellant ur ges t hat or der inghim o ut o f his c ar an d q ue st io ning him ab o ut his resi dence and reason f

or t ravel in g was unlawfu l becau se it “had no t hingto do with the al ready s olve d question regar di ng th e l i cense p l ate.” Re qu ests f

or a d ri ve r’ s l i cens e or o t her ident ifi

cat ion, pr oo f of insur ance , a nd i nf orm ati on re gar ding o wner ship o f the car and t he de st inatio n and p ur po se fo r t he trip are proper in quiri es f oll owi ng a traf f i c stop. See Davis , 947 S.W.2d at 245 n.6; Mohmed v. Sta te , 977 S.W.2d 624, 628 (Tex. A

pp.—F ort Worth 19 98, pet. ref ’d). T o permit t hese i

n qui ries to b e m ade wi th greater safet y, a p olice o ffi cer may ask t he dr iver o f the st op ped car t o s t ep o ut of t he vehicle a nd
on to the s i de of

the road
. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977)
. Ap pe ll ant’s
con ten ti on t hat Co lli ns’s initial qu est ioning o f him ou t side t he ca r e xcee ded t he pr op er sco pe o f the tra f f i c stop is wi

th out m eri t. Appe llantalso c onte

nds th e of f i cers di d n ot ha ve a la wfu l ba sis f

or detai ni ng hi m f or t he dr ug dog . A rti cul ab l e f ac ts a n d c i rc um sta n ce s th at c om e to an off

ic e r’s at t ent ion d ur ing t he
cour se o f a

ro ut ine tr affic sto p may just ify a co nt inued d et ent ion and bro ade r invest igat ion. See Razo
v. State , 57 7 S
. W. 2d 70 9, 71 1 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 197 9); Mohmed , 977 S.W .2d at 62 8. If the off ic er1 Appel la nt als o urges that t he consen t was tainted by

hi s unl awful detention. Havi

ng f ound that t he de t ent ion wa s lawful, we d o no t add re ss t his co nt ent ion. 6 hasa reasonable suspi

cion that t he auto mobi

le contains

narcot ics, h e m

ay tem porari l y detai n i t to al l owan ol f ac tory i ns pe cti on by a trai ne d poli ce dog. See Cr

ockett v . State , 803 S.W.2d 308, 310-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 1); see also Woods v. State , 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1997 ) (t est f orreas onab l e su spi

cion). Wh en Co lli

ns loo ked inside ap pellant ’s ca r, he immediate ly not iced t he powdered carpet clean

er coverin

g the rear seat and f

loor. From his traini

ng an d expe rience , t he off ic er knew t hat car pet cleaner and air fresheners like the one hanging from appellant’s m i rror were co mmo nly

used to hide the o dor of drugs. Bo th appell ant and hi s p assenger were very nervous. Appellant’s st atements re gar ding whe re he had been a nd whe re he wa s go ing wer e co nfusing and
co nt r ad ict o ry, and were i nconsistent with stateme nts m ade by hi s pas senger, Garduno . These specifi c, arti cul ab l e f ac ts a nd the rati ona l i nf ere nc esari si ng f rom these fac t s g av e C o llins a r ea so na ble ba sis f or susp ecti

ng th at appe l l an

t was sm uggl i ng d rugs . See Fi

elds v. St ate , 932 S.W.2d 97, 105 (T ex. App. —Tyler 19 96, pet . r ef’d); Bustamant e v. State , 917 S.W.2d144, 146 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no p et .) ; Foste

r v. State , 814 S.W.2d 874, 879 (Tex. App.—Beaum ont 19 91, pet . ref

’d). Appellant’s con

ten ti on th at the d etenti

on of hi s c ar f or i ns pe cti on b y the dru g dog wa s n ot base d on reasonabl e suspi ci on is overruled. Co lli ns and his pa

rtn er b eg an

se arc hi ng the i nte rior of appe l l an t’s ca r b ef ore th e dog arriv ed, after obtain

in g appella n t’s consent to do so. Appella nt contends his consen

t was inv o lunt ar y. 1 See Reas or v. State , 12 S.W.3d 813, 817-18 (T ex. Cri m. A pp. 2000) (vol

unta ry co nsent is excep tio n to Fou rt h Amendment war rant req uirement ; s ea rch af ter v ol un tary con sent i

s n ot7

un r ea so na ble under Texas Constitution artic le

I, section 9). To be val

id, a consent t o search must be po sit iv

e and unequiv

ocal, and must not be t he product of duress or coercion, either express o r im pli ed. See Carmouche , 10 S.W.3d at 331 (citi ng Schnec

kloth v. Bus tamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 228 (1973 )). Vo lu nt ar y co ns en t is n o t sh o wn by a me re acqui escenc e to a clai

m of la wful authority
. See id
. (citi ng Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543, 54 8 (19 68)). Whether consen t was giv en vo lun t ar ily

i s a q ues tion of f act to be d

eterm i ne d f rom th e total i ty of the c i rcum stan ces . See Schnec kloth , 412 U.S . at 227 ; Reasor , 12 S.W.3d at 81 8. T h e S ta t e bea rs t he bur den o f pro ving vol unta ry cons en t by clear a nd c onv i nc i ng e vi den ce. See Reasor , 12 S. W.3d at 818 ; State v. I barra , 953 S.W .2d 242 , 245 (Te x. Cri m . App. 1997 ). To support his cl

ai m that hi s consen t t o t he search

was coerced, appell

ant points out t ha t Coll i ns and hi s pa rtner were i

n f ull uni f orm a nd a rmed. He

al so al l eges that af ter st o pp in g appe l l an t, Collins made a series of “dem ands” an d “ con f ron ted A pp el l an t, aski ng a seri es of i nvasi ve, pe rs on al q ue sti on s. ” A pp el l an t wa s f ri sk ed b y Col l i n s, wh o h e s ay s m ade “ repe ate d r eq

ue sts to sea rc h” t he ca r. Co lli

ns did no t inform ap pellant that he could ref use these requests. Appel la nt adds t hat he i s a M exi can

ci tiz en , ha s di

f f i cul ty w i th En gli sh , and “may

not ha ve re co gnized ” t ha t compl ia nce wi th Coll in s’s requests was

not required. While it is t ru e t hat t he off ic ers were i

n uni form and arm ed, they did no t r emo ve t he ir
wea po ns f rom the i r hol sters or en

gagei n a ny sh owof fo rc e beyo nd frisk ing app ellant an d G ard un o. The “dem ands” to which

appe l l an t re f er s w ere i n str uc ti on s to ex

i t th e c ar an d s tepto t he side of t he road f or saf ety reas ons. The “i

nvasi ve, personal questions” concerned appellan t’s address an

d re as on f ort ra veling, a nd we re t he so rt ro ut inely m ade follow ingt ra ffi

c st op s. O n t he video t ape , C ollins was8

court eous to ap

pe l l an t an d s poke to him in a co nve r sa t io na l mann er . Ap pe llant sp o ke t o Co llins in he av ily accented but

cl ear Englis

h. He gave

prompt, appro priate ans

wers to Co ll

in s’s questions. On
one oc cas ion, app ellant indica t ed t o C ollins tha t he did no t unde rst and t he off ic er, but he otherwise did not dis pla y any la ng ua ge diffic ult y. C o llins r ep ea t ed his re que st t o s ear ch t he ca r fo r t he ap par ent purpo se of ensu

ring t hat app ellant u nder st oo d wha t he wa s ask ing, a nd ap pellant ’s affirmat ive response wa s p r o mpt an d s ee ming ly unfo rc ed. Appe llantla

ter o pened the trunk f

or t he off ic er when Co lli ns had d iff icult y with t he key. Coll

ins’s f ail ure t o advise appell

ant that he could refuse

t o c ons ent to the se arc h of hi s c ar i s p rob ati ve on th e i ss ueof voluntarines s, but n

ot determ i na tiv e. See Meeks
v. State , 692 S.W.2d 504, 510 (Tex. Crim . App. 1985). Appella nt’s suggestion that, as a Mexi can citize n, he “

ma y n ot have recogn iz ed” th

at he wasf ree to ref use a pol i ce of f i cer’ s req ues t is pure speculation; a

ppella nt did n ot testify at the suppressi on heari

ng. Having reviewed the enti

re record, incl

udin g the vi deotape of

the stopand s ubse que nt ac t ivit y, we

con cl ude th at th ere wa s c lea ran d c o nvin cin g e vid en ce t ha t ap pe llant vo lun t ar ily consented to t he search

of his car. Appel

la nt’s contenti on to the contrary i s overruled. Appe llantnext co nt ends t hat t he sc op e o f his cons ent was exce ede d whe n Arco , t he drug dog, was placed i

nsi de the car. The exten

t o f a s ear ch is lim

ited t o t he sc op e o f the co nsent given, an d t he sc o pe o f t he co nse nt is g en er ally defi ned b y i ts expressed

obj ect. See Dubo

se v. Stat e , 915 S. W. 2d 49 3, 49 6 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1996 ), overruled on other gr ounds , Guzman , 955 S.W.2d at 90. Coll

in s asked f or permi ssion to search appe ll ant’s car im me dia tely after ask ing app ellant if t he
car contain ed drug s . T he o bject of t he r equ est ed s ear ch wa s o bviou sly drug s, a nd t he su bseq uent sea rc h, includ ing t he us e o f the t ra ined do g, did no t exce ed t he sc op e o f the co nsent given.9 Appe llanturges that the

of f i cers di d n ot ha ve prob ab l e c au se

to se arc h th e i nte rior of his car with the dog . Because the car was se ar ch ed wit h a pp ella nt ’s vo lun t ar y co nse nt , t he pr o ba ble
cause i ss ue i s i rre l ev an t. A pp el l an t a l so a rguestha t Ar co’ s rel i ab i l i ty an d a ccura cy were n ot establ is hed, and t her efo re his alert did no t give t he police probabl e cause t o se ize t he ca ran d t ak e it to the servi

ce station f

or a further

sea rch
. Bec aus e t he se ar ch at t he st at ion wa s a c ont inuat ion o f the search begu n beside t he highwa y, t o w hich app ellant gave h is volun tary and un

revoked co nsent , t he qu es t io n o f pr o ba ble ca us e is aga in irreleva nt . Finally, ap pellant contends his detention b ecam e an unl awful ar re st w i th out prob ab l e c au se

wh en th e c ar wa s ta ken to t he st at ion. The rec ord d oesnot refl ect, however, that any ev

ide ncewa s s ei

ze d a s a re su l t of th i s a l l eg ed ar re st. See Keen v. State , 626 S.W .2d 309 , 314 (Te x. Cri m . App. 1981 ). The dist rict co ur t did no t er r by o ver ru ling the moti on to s uppres s. P oi

nt of er ro r o ne is overruled. In

hi s second poi

nt of error, appell ant contends the court erred by ref usi ng to instruct t he j ury pursuan t to articl e 38.2 3. SeeTe x. Code Cri m . Proc. A

nn . art. 38.23 (a) (W

est Sup p. 2000 ). T his sta tute pr ov i de s th

at i n an y ca se i n wh i ch th e iss ue i s raise d, t

h e j ur y sh oul d b e i n str uc ted to di sreg ard ev ide nc e t ha t it belie ves , o r ha s a r eas ona ble do ubt , w as o bt ained in violat ion o f the
consti tution o rlaw s o f T ex as o ro f t he Un it ed St at es . I t is a pp ella nt ’s pr inc ipa l co nt en t io n u nd er t his po intof e rr or t hat t he jury sho uld have been i nstruct ed to disregard the co cain e found in hi s car unless it w as sa t isfied tha t he vo lunt ar ily co nsent ed t o t he se ar ch. An ar t icle 38
. 23 inst ruc t io n is re quir ed w hen t her e ar e fact ual disp ut es a s t o ho w t he evi dence w as obtai

ne d. See Bell v

. State , 93 8 S. W.2d 35, 48 ( Tex. Crim. App. 199 6); Thomas v.10

State , 723 S.W.2d 696, 707 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 86) ; Hall v. State , 6 49 S .W. 2d 6 27, 628 (T ex. Cr im. App. 1983) ; Broadnax

v. State , 995 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Tex. App .— Aust in 1 999, no pet.) . When there is no confl icting testi

mony regardin g the relev

ant facts, no jury

in struc tion i s requ i

red. See Lackey v. State , 638 S.W.2d 439, 455 ( Tex . Cri m . App. 198 2); Broadnax , 995 S.W.2d at 902. Appe llantdoes n

ot refe r us to an y evi den ce i n the rec ord

ra ising a co nt ro ver t ed issu e o f fact re levant to th e v ol un tar i n es s of h i s c on se n t to the s ea

rc h of h i s c ar . Inste ad , a

pp el l an t merel y as se rtswithout el ab orati on that t he v ide ot ape “raises the is sue of wh ether the consent was v

oluntary .” He add s, “t he
ar re st ingofficer was vigo ro usly cro ss- exa m i n ed on b oth t he fact s and his co nclusio ns.” We have viewed th e v i de otap e a

n d e x am i n ed th e tr i al testi mon y . We f i n d n o se l f -e v i den t c on f l i ct i nth e evidenc e t hat called fo r a jury inst ru ct ion.

Appe llantli

sts several

ot her i ssuesas t o wh ich he cla ims an arti cl e 3 8.2 3 i ns tructi on sho uld have be en given: “w he t her t he sc op e o f the co nsent , if any, w as e xcee ded ; whet her t he dur ati on o f t he de t en t io n a mo un t ed t o an ar r es t wit ho ut pr o ba ble cau se; w het her t he detention was supported by

reasonabl

e suspi ci on; whe ther t he do g wa s pr op er ly tra ined; and whet her t he do g t ruly alerted.” He off ers no further

ar gument and ma

kes no ef fort to show that there were contested issues of fact relevan

t t o t hese m

att ers. The dist rict co ur t did no t er r by re fusing the requested instruction. Point of error t wo is overruled. The j udgme nt of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.11 Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f oreCh i ef Ju sti ce A b ous si e, Ju sti ce s K i dd an d B . A . Sm

i th Af fi rmed File d: October 5, 2000 Publish