See T ex. P enal C ode Ann. § 38. 02( b) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8)
. An o ff ense undert hi s subse ct i on i s a 1 C l a s s B M i s d e m e a n o r u n l e s s i t i s s h o wn o n t h e t r i a l o f t h e o ff e n s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t wa s a f ugi t i v e f r om ju s ti c e a t t h e ti m e o f th e o ff e n s e , i n w h i c h c a s e th e o ff e n s e b e c o m e s a C la s s A M i s d e m e a n o r. Id
. a t § 38. 02( d) ( 2)
. I n t hi s case, t he St at e di d al l ege t hatAppel l antwas a f ugi t i v e f r om j ust i ce at t he t i m e of t he NO. 07-08 -024 2-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JU NE 2, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ KRIST Y R. SIEFFERT , APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR TAT LAW NO. 2 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 7- 444,671 ; H ON ORABLE DR UE F AR ME R, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Kr is ty R. Si effert, w as conv icted by a jur y of t he Cl ass A Mis d emeanor offense of Fai lure to Ident ify and sent enced to confine ment i n the Lubboc k C ounty Ja il for 1off ense. As such t he off ense was puni shabl e by conf i nem ent i n t he co unt yj ai l f ora t er m nott o exce ed o ne

y e a r, a n d b ya fi n e o f u p to $ 4 ,0 0 0
. I d. a t § 1 2 .2 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).

Off i c e rL e w i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e a r e a a s a “ h i g h c r i m e a r e a ” b a s e d o n h i s p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e . H e 2 i n d i c a te d th e re w e re k n o w n d ru g h o u s e s i n th e a re a a n d p ro s ti tu te s c o u l d b e s e e n w a l k i n g th e s tre e ts
.

O ff i cerLewi s t est i f i ed t hat , when he p ul l ed t he SU V ov er , he “ was i nt er est ed i n exact l yw hatal l was 3 g o in g o n a n d w h y th e y w e r e o v e rth e r e in th a t p a r tic u la ra r e a .” T h e T e x a s C o u r t o fC r im in a l A p p e a ls h a s h e ld t hata pr et ext st op i s v al i d so l ong as an act ual v i ol at i on o ccur s and l aw enf or cem entoff i ci al s det ai n t he p er son fo r t h a t re a s o n re g a rd l e s s o f t h e o ff i c e r’s s u b je c ti v e re a s o n fo r d e te n ti o n . G a rc ia v . S ta te , 827 S. W
. 2d 9 37, 9 4 4 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). 2 365 days. Appel lan t’ s s ing le is sue on appe al isw hether the tr ial co urt er re d i n deny ing her moti on to su ppress her sta tementsmade w hil e bei ng i ll eg all y deta ine d. W e rev erse and re mand. Back ground At t he s uppress ion hear ing , O ff ic er Brady Lew is , Lub b ock

Pol ic e D epar

tment, testif ied th at, o n May 9, 20 07, he ob serv ed a w hite SUVw ith four occu pan ts driv ing sl owl y throug h a h ig h c ri me a rea at approx imat ely 12:4 5 a.m. H e foll ow ed th e SU V unt il he

2 pace d its sp eed a t forty miles per hou r in a th irty-f iv e mile p er hou r speed z one , at w hich p o in t h e st o p p e d th e SUVfo r sp e e d in g. 3 As Of f icer Lewis app roach ed the SUV, he had decid ed tha t his inv estigation would “g o to someth ing further” becau se the SU V had been in a hig h cr ime area and cont ain ed four oc cupan ts. W hen he approache d the v ehi cl e, R ober t St ev ens, the dr iv er , had al re ady re tr ieved hi s dr iv er ’s li cens e and proof o f i nsurance. O ff ic er Lew istes ti fied th isco ncer nedO ff i cerLewi s al so t est i f i ed t hati t was hi s usual pr ocedur e t o ask fo ra per son’ s dr i v er ’ s l i cense and 4 pro of o f i ns ura nc e “fi rst off. ” 3 him. H e al so obser

v ed that the dri v er

w as “real nerv ous” –fidg eti ng around ins ide the SU V. 4 After hav ing Ste v ens ex it the SU V, Off ic er Lew is condu cte d a pat- dow n for off ic er sa fety becau se he was “real ner v ous” and “ they

were c oming from a hig h c ri me area, a nd a lot of pros ti tuti on and narcot ic s i nv olves w eapons .” N o weapons were l ocat ed. Off ice r L e wis then walk ed St ev ens back to hispatrol car , pl aced him in the backseat , and as ked if there was anythi ng he n eeded t o k now abouti n the SU V. Stev ens re spond ed, “ No. ” The off ic er then asked him for

consentto search the SUV and St ev ens re fused. At t hat moment , O ff ic er Lew is “d idn ’t know ex act ly w hat t hey

were up to, but [ he] knew somet hing was ou t of the ord inary.” Base d up on th ese circum stan ces, Of f icer Lewi s deci ded to de tai n St ev ens and t he ot her oc cupan ts w hil e he cal led the K- 9 U nitand requeste d a do g to sea rch for drugs. Off ic er Lew istesti fied that, at thispoint, Appell ant had not gi v en him anyreaso n for s u s p i c i o n . N e v e rt h e l e s s , h e re mo v e d h e r a n d t h e o t h e r p a s s e n g e rs fro m t h e SU V and then q uest ion ed eac h as to thei r act iv it ies , i denti ti es, and the S UV ’sco ntent s. Appel lan t w as q uest ion ed tw ic e reg ardin g her i denti ty and she re spond ed w it h i ncor re ct infor mati on. Approx imat ely ten minut es lat er , a dr ug -s niffing cani ne ar ri v e d a n d a le rt e d t o the v ehicle. Despite the alert, no dru gs we re fo u n d in the SUV followi ng a search. W hile searchi ng th e SU V, h owev er , O ff ic er Lew isdi sc ov ered App ell ant’ s i denti ficat ionA p p e lla n t d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e w h e th e rO ff ic e rL e w i s ’ s i n itia l d e te n tio n o fth e d r iv e ra n d th e S U V ’s 5 pa s s en ge rs for s pe ed i ng w as i l l eg al
. T hu s , w e ne ed no t d e c i d e u n d er Te r r y v . O h io w h e th e rth e o ff ic e r ’s a c ti o n w a s ju s ti fie d a t i ts i n c e p ti o n . Te r r y v . O h io , 39 2 U
. S
. 1, 20 -21 , 88 S
. C t
. 1 86 8, 2 0 L
. E d.2d 88 9 (19 68 ). T hi s app eal i s conce r ned w i t h t he se cond pr ong oft he Ter r y v. O hio a n a l y s i s , i.e ., whet hert he se ar ch an d sei z ur e was r easona bl yr el at ed, i n scop e, t o t he ci r cum st ances t hatj ust i f i ed t he st op i n t he f i r st pl ace. 3 92 U
. S. at28- 29. 4 infor mati on. W hen he ra n her name, he iden ti fied th re e out sta ndi ng war ra nts and pla ced her under ar re st. N o wa rn in g or t ra ff icci tati on was is sued to t he dr iv er . Appel lan t was charged wit h F ail ure to Ident ify , a Cl ass A M is demeanor and subs eq uentl y

co nv icted follo w ing a j ur

y tr ial
. This appeal foll ow ed. Discus sion App ellantasserts the trial court erred by not supp ressing her statem ent s ma de while bei ng i ll eg all y

deta ine d. She c ontendsOfficer Lew isi mprop er ly prolo ng ed the t ra ff icst op in or d e r to i n it iat e an invest ig ati on for dr ug s b ased upon l ess than ar ti cul abl e facts suffici ent t o s uppor

t a re asona ble su spi ci on war ra nti ng her co n ti n u e d dete nti on. The 5 Stat e as ser

ts that Off ic er Lew is had re asona ble sus pic ion to condu ct an i nv est ig ati on for d ru g-re la te d of

fe n se s b e ca u se th e SUVha d be e n ob se rved dri ving sl o wly th ro u gh a hi gh cr ime area and the d ri v er was “e xtremely

ner v ous” and “fid g eti ng around an d reachi ng around [ ins ide ] t he vehi cl e” after bei ng st opped for

sp eedi ng . I. St and ard o f Rev iew A tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a moti on to su ppress i s rev iewed for a b u se of dis creti on, Balenti ne v. St ate , 71 S.W .3d 763, 768 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) , und er a bi furcat ed s tandard.5

Am ador v. Sta te , 221 S.W .3d 666 , 673 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 7). W hen a t ri a l court’s fact findi ng s a re bas ed on an ev alu ati on of w it nesscredi bil ity or demeanor , al most total deferenc e i s g iv en to i ts factual dete rmi nati ons suppo rt ed by the re cord. St. Ge orge v. State , 237 S.W .3d 720, 725 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2007)
. Howev er , on q uest ion s of mixed l aw and fact tha t do nott urn on the t rial cou rt’s evaluat ion of witness credibility and dem ean or, w e c onduct a de nov

o re v iew
. Am ador

, 221 S.W .3d a t 673
. W hen , as here , no f indings of fact w ere requeste d no r filed , w e revi ew the ev iden ce in the lig ht m ost favorable to th e trial court’s ruling an d assum e the t rial cou rt m ade implicit f in din g s o f factsu ppor ted b y the re cord. See State v. Ross , 3 2 S
. W
. 3 d 853, 855- 56 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2000)
. W hether the total ity

of the ci rc umstan ces i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t an o f f ic e r’ s re a s o n a b le su s p ic io n is a le ga l q u e s t io n t h a twe re vie w de n ovo . See Madde n v. State , 242 S.W .3d 504, 517 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2007) ; Lopez v. Sta te, 223 S. W .3d 4 08, 4 15 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2006, no pet .)
. II. Traffic Stops For Fourth Amendment pur poses , a traff icst op i s a se iz ure and must be re asona ble
. Dav

is v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 43, 2 45 ( Tex.Cr im .A p p . 199 7)
. Both the dr iv er and any

pas seng ers a re co nsi dered s eiz e d wit h in the mean ing of the F our th Am end me nt an d ma y

challen ge the legality

o f t he stop a nd th e length an d scop e of their detent ion
. Brend

lin v. California , 551 U .S. 249, 127 S. Ct . 240 0, 24 06- 07, 1 68 L. Ed.2d 132 (2 007)
.T h e o ff i c e r m a ya l s o a s k th e d rive r a n d p a s s e n g e rs to s te p o u t o f th e c a r. M ar yland v. Wi

lson , 519 6 U .S . 4 0 8 , 4 1 0 , 1 1 7 S .C t. 8 8 2 , 1 3 7 L .E d .2 d 4 1 (1 9 9 7 ); Str auss , 1 21 S
. W
. 3d a t 4 91
. In a dd i t i on , a protec t i ve sear ch f orweapon s i s aut ho ri z ed w he n, und ert he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cum st ances at t he t i m e, an off i cercan c o n c l u d e o n s o m e o b je c ti v e , r e a s o n a b le b a s i s th a t h i s s a fe tyi s e n d a n g e re d
. Terry , 3 9 2 U .S . a t 2 7
. See Ar i z ona v. G ant , N o. 07 -54 2, 20 09 W L 1 04 59 62 , * 7-8 (U
. S
. A pri l 21 , 20 09 ). 6 A traff icstop i s re asona ble if the pol ic e off ic er w as jus ti fied in maki ng the sto p and hisacti ons dur ing the sto p were c onfined i n leng th and scope to that neces sar y to fulfill the pur pose of the s top. Kothe v. State , 152 S.W .3d 5 4, 63 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2004)
. Act ion s a n off ic er may tak e w it hin the sc ope of i nv est ig ati on a ttend ant t o a t ra ff icst op i ncl ude re q uest ing i denti ficat ion , proof of insu ra nce, and v ehi cl e reg is trati on; c heck ing outs tandi ng w ar ra nts ; c onfir mati on of v ehi cl e re g is trati on; and ask ing about the pur pose of the tr ip and int ended d est ina ti on. Id. ; Str auss v. Sta te , 121 S.W .3d 486, 491 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2003, pet. re f’d)
. An officer

may approach not o nly

the dr iv er

but pass eng ers for th isi nformati on. Duf f v . St ate , 546 S.W .2d 2 83, 286 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 7). How ever, “ [a]b sentreason able sus pic ion , officers may co nductonl y

co nsens ual ques ti oni ng of pass eng ers i n a vehi cl e.” St. Geor ge , 23 7 S. W .3 d a t 72 6 ( c it in g Florida v. Bost ick, 501 U .S. 429, 435, 111 S. Ct
. 238 2, 11 5 L.E d.2 d 38 9 (199 1). 6 Al thoug h no ri g id ti me l imi tati on ex is ts on i ts len g th, a traffic s top i s t emporar y and mayl astno l ong er

than nec ess ar

y to effect uate it s p ur pose. Kot he , 152 S.W .3d a t 63- 64, 65 n. 43. On ce i ts pur pose has been s ati sfied, the sto p may not be us ed as a “ fishi ng expedition for unrela ted criminal ac t ivi t y .” Davis , 9 4 7 S. W .2 d at24 3 (quo ti n g Ohio v. Rob ine tte , 519 U .S. 33, 41 , 117 S.C t. 417, 422, 136 L. Ed.2d 347 ( 1996) (G ins berg , J ., conc ur ri ng ))
.T he basi s f ort he r easona bl e susp i ci on j ust i fy i ng p r ol onged det ent i on m aybe addi t i onal f act s and 7 i n fo rm a ti o n d i s c o v e re d b ya n o ff i c e r d u rin g th e l a w fu l d e te n ti o n fo r th e tra ff i c s to p . S e e R a o v . S ta te , 577 S .W .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 1 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 7 9 ); P o w e ll v . S ta te , 5 S. W
. 3d 3 69, 378 - 79 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 1999, p e t. re f’d ), cert
. den ied , 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 1 6 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 1 9 7 6 , 1 4 6 L .E d .2 d 8 0 5 (2 0 0 0 ). 7 After an officer

has v ali dly

st opped a v ehi cl e for a traff icoffe n se, the off ic er may cond uct a brief

in v estigative deten tion, or “ Terry st op,” of the o cc upantsof the vehi cl e w hen h e h a s a re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n t o b e li e ve t h a tt h e o c c u p a n ti s i n vo lve d in cr im in a l a ct ivi ty. The reason abl enessof the temporar y detenti on must be ex amined in terms of the t otal ity of the circum stan ces an d w ill be justif ied w hen the de tainin g of f icer has spe cif ic articulable facts, w hic h, t aken tog ether w it h ra ti onal inferences from thos e facts, lea d hi m to c oncl ude t h a tt h e p e rs o n d e t a in e d a ct u a ll y is , h a s b e e n , o r s o o n wil l b e e n ga ge d in cr im in a l a ct ivi ty. See B ale nti

ne, 71 S. W .3d a t 768
. If dur ing a vali d traff icst o p t h e of ficer dev elo ps re asona ble su spi ci on th at t he det ain ees are eng ag ed i n oth er cr imi nal acti v ity , prolo ng ed 7 or co nti nued de te n ti o n is j ust ified
. Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 244
. See Haa s v . St ate , 172 S.W .3d 4 2, 52 ( Tex .App. –W aco 2005, pet. re f’d) ; Per ale s v . St ate , 117 S.W .3d 4 34, 4 39 (Tex .App. –Co rp us Chr is ti 2003, pet. ref’d) ; Mc Quar ter s v . St ate , 58 S.W .3d 2 50, 2 56 (Tex .App. –For

t W orth 20 01, p et. re f’d)
. In Rob ine tte, t he U.S. Sup reme Court held thata contin ued dete ntion and request to search a detai nee' s v ehi cl e follo w ing a traff ic sto p was re asona ble , wher e c onsen t was giv en , even thou gh no circum stan ces w ere noted tha t would have constitu ted reason able sus pic ion of other

cr imi nal acti v ity . See R obi nette , 117 S.Ct. at4 2 0-21 . By cont rast, in Davis, the Cou rt of

Cri min al App eals foun d the of f icers' condu ct unrea sona bl e w hereW hi l e Appel l antor i gi nal l y bor e t he bur den of pr oof at t he suppr essi on hear i ng, t he St at e st i pul at ed 8 t hatAppel l ant ’ s ar r est w as war r ant l ess. T he bur den t hen shi ft ed t o t he St at e t o est abl i sh t hatt he sei z ur e was c o n d u c te d p u rs u a n t t o a w a rr a n t o r w a s re a s o n a b le
. B is h o p v . S ta te , 85 S. W
. 3d 8 19, 822 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 20 02 ). 8 off ic ers n ev erthel ess deta ine d the v ehi cl e, and t h u s it s o cc upants , after the detai nee re fus ed to cons ent t o a s earch of his ca r, and suffici ent t ime to ef fectuate the pur pose of the o ri g ina l detent ion had ela psed. See Davis, 947 S.W .2d a t 246. W e i nter pret Davis and Rob ine tteto me an th at an of f icer may request co nsen t to sea rch a ve h ic le a f ter a traf f ic sto p butmay

not detai n the v ehi cl e or i ts occ upantsi f such cons ent i s refused unle ss re asona ble suspi ci on of some cr imi nal acti v ity

ex is ts. I n oth er

words, i f a v ali d traff icst op e v o l v e s i n t o a n i n v e s t i g a t i v e d e t e n t i o n of o t h e r cr i mi n a l act i v i ty

( s u c h a s p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont rolled sub stan ce ) so tha t a canin e snif f can take place, reason able suspicion is re q u i re d t o p ro l o n g t h e d e t e n t i o n a n d re fu s a l t o c o n s e n tt o s e a rc h d o e s n o t , i n a n d o f i t s e l f, est abl is h tha t req uirement. Gr een v . St ate, 256 S.W .3d 456, 462 (Tex .App. –W aco 2008, no pet .)( col lected c ases ci ted t herein ); McQuarte rs , 58 S.W .3d a t 256 ( olfact or y i nspecti on by pol ic e dog train ed to dete ct the o dor of il leg al dr ug s req uires a reason abl e s uspi ci on th at the v ehicle co nta ins narcot ics). The bu rd en i s o n the Stat e to eli ci t t est imony sh ow ing su ff ic ien t factsto create a re asona ble su spi ci on. Gar ci a v . St ate , 43 S.W .3d 527, 530 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2001)
. In our 8 d e t e rm in a t io n o f

wh e t h e r re a s o n a b le su s p ic io n e xis t e d fo r p ro lo n gi n g t h is t ra f f icst o p , we g iv e due w eig ht no t t o the off ic er ’si nchoa te and unpar ti cul ar iz ed sus pic ion or “h unch, ” but to the spec ificreason abl e i nferenc es that he was enti tl ed to draw from t he factsi n l ig ht of9

hisex per ien ce. See Davis , 9 4 7 S.W .2d a t 242
. Any i nv est ig ati v e det enti on th at i s n ot based on re asona ble sus pic ion i s u nreason abl e and v iol ates the Four th A mendment. Id. III. Continued D etention Appel lan t as ser

ts that Off ic er

Lew is ’sdr ug i nv est ig ati on was not j ust ified by the traff icstop for speed ing and her prolo ng ed det enti on was il leg al becau se the o ff ic er l ack ed any reason abl e s uspi ci on that she, or anyone els e in the SU V, w as eng ag ed i n any i ll eg al act iv ity w hen he ini ti ated the d ru g i nv est ig ati on. She conten ds the SUV bei ng sl ow ly dr iven throug h a h igh c rim e area l ate a t ni g ht an d the dr iv er ’sner v ousne ss after

hav ing been sto pped by

the pol ic e for speed ing were i nsuffici ent t o c re ate reason abl e s uspi ci on to jus ti fy prolo ng ed det enti on for an unrela ted d ru g i nv est ig ati on. As a resul t, she ass erts that all her st atementsmade t o Officer Lew isafter

he radi oed for the d ru g -s niffing ca nin e and remo v ed h er f rom th e SUV w ere inad missible beca use h er dete ntion was illegal. Altho ugh the time o f

day and the le v el of

criminal activity

in an area may be facto rs to c onsi der

i n det er minin g re asona ble su spi ci on, t hey are notsu spi ci ous in and of themse lv es; Hud

son v. State , 247 S.W .3d 780 , 786 -87 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2008 , no pe t.); Gr een, 256 S. W .3d a t 462 , and t h a t d e ta in e es w ere s een or found i n a h ig h c ri me area a lo n e doesnot w ar ra nt reason abl e s uspi ci on. Gur ro la v. State , 8 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d 300, 303 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1997) ; Am or ell a v . St ate , 554 S. W .2d 700 , 701 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 7). Nei ther does dr iv ing sl ow er

than the post ed s peed; Vive ro s v . St ate , 828 S.W .2d 2 , 3 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ; S h a f f e r v . Sta te , 562 S.W .2d 853 , 854 -55 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 78),10

nor ner v ousne ss ; Gr

een , 256 S.W .3d a t 462 ; LeBl anc v. State , 138 S.W .3d 6 03, 6 08 n. 6 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [14 Dist.] 200 4, no pet .), by the mse lv es, warra n treason able th sus pic ion
. Off icer Lew istes ti fied atthe hear ing thatw hen he sto pped t he SU V for speed ing he had already

dec ide d the t ra f

f ic st op woul d evolve i nto s omethi ng more bec ause the SU V was comi ng from a hig h c ri me area. Si g nific antl y , howev er , he did not obser v e any act iv ity pr ior to the s top t hat woul d i ndi cat e that the SUV’ s o cc upantsmig ht ha v e eng ag ed in any ill eg al act iv ity

su ch as sto ppi ng near a k now n dr ug hous e or dr ug -d eal ing l ocat ion , lea v ing the SU V to i nteractw ith a nyone, or eng ag ing i n any

“ hand- to- hand” acti v ity w it h anyone i n the nei g hbor hood. In fact, d espi te t he SU V’ s p re senc e i n the area, h e di d not w it nessany

of the S UV ’soc cupan ts eng ag e i n any acti v ity othe r than dr iv ing sl ow ly
. Off ic er Lew isal so tes ti fied he bel ieved he had reas onabl e suspi ci on to belie v e tha t the d ri v er

had eng ag ed i n i ll eg al act iv ity bec ause the d ri v er

wa s n e rvou s. A number of courts ha v e ob serv ed th at ne rv ousn ess is of minim al proba tiv e v alue , gi v en th at m any, if notmost , indivi dua ls can beco me nervous or agi tate d w hen d e t a in e d by police of f icers. See D eschenes

v. Sta te , 253 S.W .3d 374, 383 n.10 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2008, pet. re f’d) (c oll ect ed c asesci ted t herein ); McQuarte rs , 58 S.W .3d a t 257 -5 8 “ (n er v ousne ss i s a weak ind ic ator of hid den narcot ic s” ). That the combi nati on of t hese two ev ents resul ted i n l ess than reason abl e s uspi ci on isal so ev ide nced by

Officer Lew is ’sow n tes ti mony . Pr ior to cal li ng the K- 9 U nit , he w asT her e m ust be a r easona bl e suspi ci on by t he off i cer t hatsom e un usual act i v i t yi s orhas occur r ed, 9 th a t t h e d e ta i n e d p e rs o n i s c o n n e c te d w ith t h e a c ti v i tya n d th a t the u nusual acti vit y is relat ed to the c o mm is s io n o f

a c r ime . H o a g v . S ta te , 7 2 8 S .W .2 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 0 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). S e e a ls o My e rs v . S ta te , S. W
. 3d 8 73, 882 ( T ex. App. –East l and 2006, pet
. r ef ’ d)
. Al t hough dr i v i ng sl owl yt hr ough a hi gh cr i m e ar ea m ay cr eat e an i nf er ence t hatt her e was “ som et hi ng o ut of the o rdi na ry ” occur r i ng, t he m i ssi ng l i nk her e i s t hat O ffi c er Le w i s ob s erve d no t hi ng be fore or du ri ng t he t raffi c stop t ha t w ou l d l ea d a reas on ab l e p ers on t o b el i eve th a t th i s “s u s p i c i o u s a c ti v i ty ” w a s re l a te d to th e c o m m i s s i o n o f a n yc rim e . See Vi ver os , 8 2 8 S .W .2 d a t 3 . T h is s ta n d a rd i s a n o b je c ti v e o n e , O ff i c e r L e w i s ’ s h u n c h is ir r e le v a n t. W i ls o n v . S ta te , 132 S. W
. 3d 6 95, 698 ( T ex. App. –Am ar i l l o 2004, pet
. r ef ’ d) ( ci t i ng G a rc ia v . S ta te , 4 3 S .W .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 0 (T e x .C rim .A p p . 2 0 0 1 ))
.

W i t h t he e xcept i on o ft he d r i v er ’ s nerv ousness, O ff i cerLewi s l ear ned orobse r v ed n ot hi ng n ew 10 d u rin g th e s to p th a t w o u l d re a s o n a b l yl e a d to a n yh e i g h te n e d s u s p i c i o n . S e e , e .g ., D a vis , 947 S. W
. 2d a t 245 - 46 ( no r easona bl e susp i ci on t o de t ai n when off i cer s concl uded out - of - st at e dr i v er was noti nt oxi cat ed b ut t hey a l s o b e l i e v e d th e d rive r w a s n o t o n a b u s i n e s s tri p a s re p re s e n te d ); W h ite v . S ta te , 574 S. W
. 2d 5 46, 547 ( T e x .C r im .A p p . 1 9 7 8 ) ( r e a s o n a b le s u s p i c i o n d i d n o t e x is t w h e r e v e h ic le o b s e r v e d d r iv in g a im le s s ly in m a ll p a rk i n g l o t e v e n th o u g h th e re h a d b e e n a ra s h o f p u rs e s n a tc h i n g s i n th e p a rk i n g l o t); S ta te v . L o s o y a , 128 S. W
. 3d 4 13, 415 ( T ex. App. -A us t i n 2004, pet
. r ef ’ d) ( no r easona bl e susp i ci on when off i cer s, act i ng o n an a n o n ym o u s tip o fa “ b la c k m a le ” in v o lv e d in n a r c o tic s a c tiv ity, o b s e r v e d a “ b l a c k m a l e ” m a k e a “ h a s ty” d e p a rtu re fro m h i g h c rim e a re a a f te r o b s e rv i n g th e p o l i c e ); Kla re v . S ta te , 76 S. W
. 3d 6 8, 72, 77 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14 D i st
. ] 2002, pet
. re f ’ d) (n o r easona bl e susp i ci on wher e pi ck up t r uck was obser v ed th par k ed b ehi nd a shoppi ng cent er at 2: 30 a. m . , al l t he busi nesses wer e cl osed and t he shoppi ng ce nt erhad b e e n b u rg l a rize d a n u m b e r o f ti m e s ); D a vis v . S ta te , 6 1 S .W .3 d 9 4 , 9 8 -9 9 (T e x .A p p .– A m a ril l o 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) ( no r ea so na bl e su sp i ci on wh er e a gr ou p of p eo pl e we r e ga t he r ed i n a y ar d l oc at ed i n a ne i gh bo r ho od kno wn 11 unsure w hether

the SU V’ s o cc upantshad eng ag ed i n any i ll eg al act iv ity . He tes ti fied th at he “ did n’tkn ow

i t was dr ug s. I mean, I jus t knew that someth ing was out o f the ordin ar y .” 9 Nevertheless, he prolonged their det ent ion to launch a new investig ation into a po ssible dr ug -rela ted o ffense and c all ed th e K- 9 U nit
. T h ereafter, he p ro ceede d to eng ag e i n a fishi ng ex pedi ti on to dete rmi ne w hether there were dr ug s i n the SU V–remov ed th e pass eng ers from the v ehi cl e, and then q uest ion ed them as to thei r act iv it ies , ide nti ty , and the SUV’s conte nts. Of f icer Lewi s’s suspicion th at “som eth ing was ou t of the ordina ry” w as not hing more than an i nar

ti cul ate h unch or

su spi ci on–i nsuffici ent for a t emporar

y detenti on. Talbe rt v. State , 489 S.W .2d 309, 311 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1973)
. W hen he deci ded to condu ct a dr ug 10fo r d ru g tra ff i c k i n g a n d d e fe n d a n t w a s o b s e rv e d w a l k i n g to a n d fro m th e g ro u p s e v e ra l ti m e s ). C f. A m o re lla ,

554 S. W
. 2d a t 701 ( r easona bl e susp i ci on forst op when v ehi cl e ob ser v ed wi t h i t s l i ght s on a nd m ot orr unni ng i n de par t m entst or e pa r k i ng l ot i n hi gh cr i m e ar ea a t 1: 30 a
. m . wi t h sev er al i ndi v i dual s st andi ng a r ound an o p e n tru n k w h i c h w a s im m e d i a te l yc l o s e d a n d th e c a r d rive n a w a yw h e n th e p o l i c e w e re s p o tte d ); Lopezv. S ta te , 2 2 3 S. W
. 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 5 ( Tex
. Ap p . – Am a r i l l o 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t
. ) ( r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n e x i s t e d f o r f ur t her det ent i on o fdef endan t st opped i n hi gh cr i m e ar ea when off i cerobse r v ed p l ast i c bag gi e i n cr ease ofgas cap c o m p a rtm e n t); Str

auss , 12 1 S
. W
. 3d at 49 1-9 2 (pro l on ge d d eten t i on of t ra ff i c s t op reas on ab l e w he re i nconsi st entanswer s bypasse ngerand dr i v ert o qu est i ons a bout owner shi p of carand i nt ended dest i nat i on, l ar ge a m oun t o f d eterge nt i n carconsi st entwi t h eff or t s t o m ask t he sm el l of dr ugs, and sm el l of bur nt m ar i huana cr eat ed r easona bl e s us pi c i on ); F re e m a n v . S ta te , 62 S. W
. 3d 8 83, 888 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 2001, pet
. r ef ’ d) ( pr ol onged det ent i on of t r aff i c st op r easona bl e wher e i nconsi st entanswer s bypasse ngerand dr i v er t o “ basi c que st i ons, ” use ofr ent al car , and sm el l of m ar i huana i n cardet ect ed whi l e off i cert al k ed t o pa ssenger s u ff i c i e n t fo r re a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n ). 12 investig ation and called for the d rug-sniff ing c a n in e, th e pu rpose and focus o f the traf f ic sto p w a s i mp e r mi s s i b l y a l t e re d b e c a u s e h e l a c k e d a n y s p e c i fi ca rt i c u l a b l e fa ct s , w h ic h, w hen comb ined w ith ration al inferen ces f rom th ose facts, would create a reason able sus pic ion su ff ic ien t t o cont inu e the detent ion and prolo ng the t ra ff icst op for pur posesof condu cti ng a dr ug i nv est ig ati on. This i s p arti cul ar ly

so reg ardin g Appell ant. Of ficer Lew istesti fied he had no re ason to s uspect Ap pel lan t w hen s he was re mov ed from t he SUV in preparati on for the ar ri v al of a drug-d e tecti ng dog and then re peatedl y q uest ion ed. Det ain ing Appel lan t for further q uest ion ing pendi ng the ar ri v al of the drug -s niffing dog went b eyond t he s cope of the s top and unreason abl y

prolo ng ed her

dete nti on. See S t. Geor ge v . St ate , 237 S.W .3d 7 20, 7 26 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 07). In St. Geor

ge , a driv er was stop ped bypolice be cause he ha d an inope rativ e license pla te l ig ht. Id. at 722. In re spons e to the o ff ic ers’ req uestfor i denti fi ca ti o n , t he dr iver prod uced his driv er’s license. T he p assen ger respo nde d tha t, alth ough he had a driv er’s13

license, he did n ot ha v e it w ith him and g ave a fa lse nam e an d da te of b irth. Th e driv er’s li cens e and w ar ra nt chec ks came back clear and the o ff ic ers i ss ued a w ar nin g . W hil e one of f icer issued the w arning, a seco nd o f f icer began questio ning the pa ssenger regarding his ide nti ty and lea rn ed hi s tr ue name. Upo n r unni ng the pass eng er ’str ue name for a w ar ra nt chec k, the o ff ic ers d is cov ered t he pass eng er had outs tandi ng traff icwar ra nts and ar re ste d him. D ur ing a s earch inc ide nt t o ar re st, they di sc ov ered mar ihu ana on hisperson. Id. T he Court of Criminal App eals rejecte d the Sta te’s argume nt th at th e pa ssenger’s mis ide nti ficat ion co upl ed w it h his ner v ousne ss amounted to reason abl e s uspi ci on for the pass eng er ’sdete nti on onc e the pur pose for th e s top h ad been co mpleted. 237 S. W .3d at 72 6. The St. Geor

ge Cou rthel d tha t, whe n t h e war nin g was is sued to t he dr iv er , t he off ic ers h ad n o speci fic a rt ic ula ble facts to bel ieve the pas seng er was involved i n any cr imi nal acti v ity

and, w it hout separate reason abl e s uspi ci on, q uest io n in g the pass eng er re g ardin g hi s i denti ty

and chec ki ng for war ra nts went beyond the sc ope of t he traff icst op and unreason abl y

prolo ng ed i ts durati on . Id. (ci ti n g Br own v. T exas , 443 U. S. 4 7, 52 -5 3, 99 S. Ct . 263 7, 61 L.E d.2d 357 ( 1979) ). The St. Geor ge Cou rtst ated, “ [b]ec ause the off ic ers fai led to show re asona ble sus pic ion in thi s cas e, it w as unreason abl e for them t o cont inue deta ining Appe llant lon g af ter the warning citation was issued .” Id. at 72 7. Here, w hen Off ic er

Lew isstopped the S UVfor s peedi ng , asi n St. Geor ge , the l eg al jus ti ficat ion or

pur pose of the s top was to ei ther war n or c it e the dr iv er

for a traff icv iol ati on. Of f icer Lewi s had no reaso nab le suspicion to cond uct any oth er inv estigation base d on hisT he St at e at t em pt s t o di st i ngui sh St
. G eor ge because , i n St
. G eor ge , t he d r i v erwas ci t ed whi l e t he 11 passeng er was quest i oned and i ncr i m i nat i ng st at em ent s wer e obt ai ned. 237 S. W
. 3d a t 726
. T he St
. G eor ge C o u rt i n d i c a te d th a t t h e c i ta ti o n ’ s i s s u a n c e s i g n a l e d th e e n d o f th e tra ff i c s to p . I d. H e r e , O ff ic e rL e w is si gnal ed t he end of t he t r aff i c st op when he a sk ed t he d r i v erwhet herhe possessed anyi l l egal cont r aband and t hen sol i ci t ed h i s conse nt t o sea r ch t he SU V. Al t hough t hi s was a pr operact , “[ i ] fconse nt i s wi t hhel d, t hen f ur t herdet ent i on o fei t hert he i ndi v i dual orchat t el [ i n t he a bsence ofr easona bl e susp i ci on] beco m es i m pro pe r. ” Str

auss , 1 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 4 9 1
. See H aas , 172 S
. W
. 3d at 52. T her eaft er , O ff i cerLewi s aba ndone d t he o r i gi nal pur pose f ort he st op, a speedi ng v i ol at i on, and i m per m i ssi bl yexpa nded i t s pur pose and scope by p r o lo n g in g th e tr a ff ic s to p f o ra n im p r o p e rp u r p o s e – a d r u g in v e s tig a tio n f o rw h ic h h e la c k e d r e a s o n a b le suspi ci on. W hi l e, i n St
. G eor ge , t he o ff i cer s wer e un abl e t o sho w r easona bl e susp i ci on t o j ust i fydet ai ni ng t he passeng er aft er t he ci t at i on was i ssued; id
. a t 7 2 6 - 2 7 , h e r e , O ff ic e rL e w is w a s u n a b le to s h o w r e a s o n a b le suspi ci on t o j ust i fy det ai ni ng t he passeng eraft ert he ci t at i on should ha ve be en issued
. R at hert han cont i nue t o pu r sue t he i nv est i gat i on a t t endan t t o t he t r aff i c st op, O ff i cerLewi s chose t o abandon t hati nv est i gat i on a nd l a u n c h a n e w in v e s ti g a ti o n in th e h o p e s o f f i n d i n g e v i d e n c e o f s o m e d ru g o ff e n s e . S e e D a vis , 947 S. W
. 2d at 245 ( “ t he p r opr i et yof t he d et ent i on i s j udge d by w he t herpol i ce pu r sued a m eans ofi nv est i gat i on whi ch di spel l ed o rconf i r m ed t hei rsuspi ci ons q ui ck l yand i n a m annert hatdi d no t ex ceed t he sco pe o ft he det ent i on” )
. W e n ote, thi s i s n ot a case wher e an off i cersoug ht t o i nv est i gat e s p e c ific suspe ct ed cr i m i nal act i v i t ypr i ort o com pl et i ng t he t r aff i c st op, t hi s i s a case wher e t he o ff i cersoug ht t o i nv est i gat e a “ hunch” or “s u s p i c i o n ” u n d u l yp ro l o n g i n g a n o th e rw i s e va l i d tra ff i c s to p . C f. Kothe , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d a t 6 5 -6 6
. 14 hunch that“ someth ing was out of t he ordin ar y .” N eit her

the SU V dr iv ing sl ow ly throug h a hig h c ri me area nor the d ri v er ’sner v ousne ss dur ing the sto p s uppor ted a ny more tha n an inference or

su spi ci on, a t bes t, that any cr imi nal acti vity wa s afoot. W hen t he dr iver re fused Officer

Lew is ’sreq uestto search the S UV , he had l ear ned not h in g n ew that jus ti fied prolo ng ing thei r detent ion
. At t hat p oin t, itwas inc umbent u pon hi m to e it her i ss ue a war nin g or

ci tati on tothe dr iv er

for s peedi n g. I n it ia ting a dr ug -rela ted i nv est ig ati on by cal li ng for a dr ug -s niffing ca nin e and then re mov ing the p a ss e n ger s f ro m the SU V, question ing them abo ut th eir activ ities, iden tities, an d the SUV’s conte nts imp ermissibly prolon ged the ir deten tion by exceeding the purpo se of the traf f ic stop. T hatOf

f icer Lewi s did not for mall y

i ss ue a w ar nin g or

ci tati on i s o f no moment. H istes ti mony at the 11 s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g in d ic a t e s t h a t p u ll in g t h e S UVo ve r fo r a t ra f f icvio la t io n wa s a p re t e xt for findi ng out w hat t he oc cupan ts w ere “up to,” and hispract ic e was to i ss ue onl y a ver bal15

w ar nin g i f the s peedi ng v iolat io n w as for l ess than ten mil es per hour i n exces s o f the post ed s peed l imi t. H ere, the SU V ex ceed the post ed speed li mit by onl y a fewmil es per hour and the d ri v er

ul ti matel y

recei v ed no w ar nin g or ci tati on for speed ing
. Beca use reaso nab le suspicion for t he drug-related in v estigation was lackin g in this cas e, i t was unreason abl e fo r Off icer Lew isto cont inu e det ain ing Appel lan t after he imper mis si bly

al tered th e pur pose of the s top, ex panded it s sc o p e , and prolo ng ed Appel lan t’ s d etent ion l ong er than nec ess ar

y to effect uate the t ra ff icst op’ s o ri g ina l pur pose. Accordin gly , w e f ind th e trial court erred in de nying Appe llant’s mo tion to supp ress. IV. Har m A nal ysis Hav ing found er ro r, w e must condu ct a har m anal ysi s t o det er mine w hether the er ro r cal lsfor rev ersal of jud g ment. Tex . R . Ap p. P . 44.2. Here, the tri al cour t erred bydeny ing Appel lan t’ s mot ion to suppress her state ments made duri ng the unreason abl e, prolo ng ed detent ion
. The ev ide nce w as subs eq uentl y adm it te d a t tr ial
. An i nv est ig ati v e det enti on that isnot based on reason abl e s uspi ci on i s u nreason abl e a n d o f fends the F our

th Amendment; Davis , 947 S.W .2d a t 242 , rend ering any subse quently discov ered ev iden ce inad missible a s “f ruit o f t he poiso nou s t ree.” Segur a v. United S tates , 468 U .S. 796, 804, 104 S.Ct. 33 80, 82 L.E d.2 d 599 (19 84). T he e rror below was con stitutio nal error and Rule 44.2( a) i s a ppl ic abl e.16

T o de term ine w het her preju dice occu rred b y the intro duct ion of

Appe llant’s sta tementsat tr ial , we ev alu ate t he ent ire record i n a n eutral, i mpart ial , and ev en- handed manner , noti n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the p ro sec uti on; Al for d v . St ate , 22 S.W .3d 6 69, 673 ( Tex .App. –For

t W orth 20 00, p et. re f’d) , and must re v erse unl ess we det er mine beyond a reason abl e doubtthat er ro r did not cont ri bute to A ppel lan t’ s c onv icti on or puni shment
. Id. W e c onsi der

the source and nat ure of the er ro r, the extent it w as emphasi z ed by the Stat e, itsprobabl e coll ateral impl ic ati ons, the w eig ht a juror woul d probabl y

pl ace on th e er ro r, and w hether

dec lar ing i t har mles s woul d be li kel y to encou ra g e the Sta te t o repeat itw it h i mpunity . Har

ri s v . St ate , 790 S.W .2d 5 68, 5 87 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1989) . W e do not focus o n the pro p ri e t y o f the ou tcom e, bu t calculat e as m uch a s possible the pro bab le impact on the j ur

y i n l ig ht of

t h e e xistence of other ev ide nce. W

esbr ook v. State , 29 S.W .3d 1 03, 1 19 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2000) , cer t. denied , 532 U.S. 944, 121 S. Ct . 140 7, 14 9 L.Ed. 2d 349 (2 001)
. Here, A ppellan t was charg ed w it h the offense of fail ure to ide nti fy. W it hout her state me nts m ade during the un reaso nab le d e t e n t io n, th ere is noth ing else in the record show ing Appel lan t fail ed to i denti fy hersel f duri ng the traff ic sto p. After carefull y rev iew ing the record and performin g the required harm ana lysis unde r Rule 44.2 (a), we are un able to de ter mine beyond a re asona ble doubtthatthe tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of Appel lan t’ s mot ion to s uppre ss h e r statements di d notco ntr ibu te t o her co nv icti on or

puni shment
. Acc ordin g ly , we s ust ain Appel lan t’ s s ing le is sue.17 Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s rev ersed and t he ca u se i s remanded for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion
.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Justice Publ is h.