i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 25 7- CR Stephen HA M LIN , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 290th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-0123 Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: April 1, 2009 AFF I RMED Ste ph e n H amli n w a s cha

rg e d with po sse ssi on of me tha mph e tamin e . A ft e r t

he de nia l of

his mot ion to s up pr e ss, he e nte re d into a ple a -b arg a in a g re e me nt a

nd , in a c c or da nc e wi th t hat a g re e me nt, was sente nced to twe lve y ear s imprisonment and a fine of $2,000. O n appea l, he ar g ues that the trial
c ourt sh ou ld h ave g ra

nte d h is m oti on

to s up pr e ss. We a ff

ir m.04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND A t t h e h e a r i n g o n H a ml in ’ s mo ti o nto s u

p p r e s s , f o ur w it n e s s te s ti f ie d : O f f ic e r M arty L a ur e n z; Of fi c e r L ou is T ije ri na ; A lle n H arv iso n, a pr ivate inv e sti g a tor

hir e d b y Ha mli n; a nd the de fe nd ant, Stephen Hamlin. At the end of the hea ring , the trial cour

t denied Hamlin’s moti on to suppress. Officer Marty Laurenz Offic er Ma

rty L aure nz testi fied that on the night of Oc tober 25, 2006, he and Of fice r Tijerina
wer e on patr ol when they

saw a vehicle w ith a broken hea dlight. Ac cordingto Office r L aure nz, after they stopped the vehic le, he de alt with the passeng er, a nd Of fi ce r T i jerina de alt with the driver, Appellant Stephen Ha

mlin. W hen a c omputer che ck indicate d that the passeng er had an outstanding
war rant re lating to a

traff ic offe nse, Off

icer L aure nz arreste d the passeng er. Wit h respe ct the d ri v er , Of fi cer L aure nz testi fied that Of fice r Tijerina

asked the driver, Hamlin, to ge t out of the vehicle and aske d the driver whether he could sear ch the vehicle. Ac cording to Office r L aure nz, Hamlin said, “Yes.” A s Offic er Tijerina was sear ching the car , Offic er L aure nz asked H amlin whether

Hamlin had any

thing on his p er s o n t h at Offic er L aure nz “neede d to know
a bo ut. ” Ha mli n re pli e d “No .” Of

fi c e r L a ur e nz th e n a sk e d if

he c ou ld s e arc h H amli n. Ha mli n s a id “y eah, he didn’t have a

problem with it.” Acc ordingto Office r L aure nz, during his sea rch of Hamlin, he found in Ha

mlin’s pocket a small cle ar pla stic bag g ie containingwhat appear ed to be methamphetamine. So, Of fice r L aure nz placed Hamlin under arr est. Acc ordingto Office r L aure n z , Of fice r Tijerina

then “f inished the sear ch and f

ound more
narc otics in [ Hamlin’s] sock.” The of fice rs then had an evidence technician c ome and f ield test the substance, a

nd the substance tested positive for methamphetamine.04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 3- On cr oss-examination, when asked why he aske d to searc h Hamlin, Offic er L aure nz replied, “B eca use of the hig h crime a

rea .” Also on cr oss-examination, Office r L aure nz testi fied that the driver did not do any

thing that sug g ested a

sear ch wa s neede d; he had a valid driver’ s license a

nd proof of insurance ; he did not show s i gns of intox ication; a computer chec k did not indicate any active w arr ants; and, a computer chec k did not indicate the ca r wa s stolen. Furthe r, Off

icer L aure nz admitted that the passeng er’ s and the driver’ s explanations of wher e they wer e g oing a nd their re ason fo r be ing the re we re c on sis te nt. Ac c or din g to Of fi c e r L a ur e nz, ne ith e r did any

thi ngthat c a

us e d h im
conce rn. F inally , Offic er L aure nz testi fied that he was proba bly at the sce ne for

at least for

ty -five minutes. On re -direc t, Office r L aure nz ex plained that runningthe computer chec k on the passeng er
and “ g e t[tin g ] the id ent if

icatio n a nd e ve ry thi ng ” too k a

bo ut t e n to fi ft e e n mi nute s. Ac c or din g to Offic er L aure nz, during this period of t i m e, the driver was still in the vehicle behind the ste ering wh e e l. On ly a ft e r the pa sse ng e r w a s “ se c ur e d” did Of fi c e r T ije ri na

a pp ro a c h th e dr ive r a

nd a sk to
sear ch the ve hicle, which Offic er L aure nz estimated oc curr ed about f ifteen to twe nty

minutes after the ini tia l st op . T he n, be c a us e na rc oti c s w e re fo un d, the y

ha d to have an e vid e nc e te c hn ic ian c ome
out to fi e ld t e st the su sp e c te d s ub sta nc e , w hic h b e c a

us e the te c hn ic ians “ are tie d u p o n o the r c a lls like burg laries” can take some time. So, Offic er L aure nz estim ated that the e ntire stop took forty -five minutes to an hour. Officer Louis Ti

jerina L ike Off icer L aure nz, Officer

L ouis Tijerina testified that they sto p p e d th e v e h ic lein

q u e stion beca use of a broken headlig ht. A ccor ding to O ffice r Tijerina, he approa ched the vehicle and aske d the driver , Hamlin, for identific ation and proof of insuranc e. Of

fice r L aurenz approac hed the04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

1 ... A t t he end of t he heari ng, H am l i n’ s at t o rney argued t hat t hi s t est i m o ny s ho wed t hat O f f i cers La urenz and T i j er i na i ni t i al l y s t op ped H aml i n a t 12: 59 a. m. I n r es po ns e, t he St at e s t at ed t hat “ t her e wa s a r ecor d of 12: 59 t hat was te stif ie d to b y the d e fen se w itne ss.” A c c o rd ing to th e S ta te , “I t so u n d e d to m e in the tes tim o n y li k e the o ff ic e rs w e re in the a re a o f A u stin H igh w a y, a n d the y w e re fo llo w ing so m e o n e , a n d the y w a v e d tha t p e rs o n o ff b e c a u se [h e ] m a d e a tur n .” T he t r i al cour t r epl i ed, “ T hat ’ s wh at I r ememb er . ”

- 4- passeng er. Then, they

both went bac k to the patrol ca r to run computer

chec ks. The che ck on the pa sse ng e r i nd ic ate d th at he ha d a n o uts tand ingwa

rr ant. Of fi c e r L a ur e nz the n to ok

the pa sse ng e r t o the patr ol c ar whil e Of

fi c e r T ije ri na

re ma ine d w ith th e dri ver and a sk e d th e dr ive r f

or c on se nt t o
sear ch the ve h i cl e. T h e driver, Hamlin, was still sitt ing in his vehic le. Hamlin conse nted to the
sear ch, and O ffice r Tijerina then aske d him to step out of t he vehicle. Officer Tijerina then se arc hed the vehicle . Offic er Tijerina testified that he sear ched the car only once. O ffice r Tijerina

estimated that he starte d sear chingthe vehicle about “thre e to five minutes” a fter the stop. Allen Harvison Al le n H arv iso n, a

pr ivate inv e sti g a tor

hir e d b y Ha

mli n, te sti fi e d that he su

bp oe na e d an a

ud io
re c or din g , w hic h a lso ha d a log , f ro m th e City of S an Ant onio. Ac c or din gto H arv iso n, the a ud io
rec ordingindicated that at 12:59 a.m., O f f ic er L aure nz and Office r Hamlin were “ attempting to make
a traff ic stop, a nd they say never mind, he’s turningleft.” 1 Acc ordingto Harvison, at 1:37 a.m., the audio re cordingindicated that they were at the sc ene of the traf fic stop. At 1:55 a.m., the off icer s asked f or a c ase numbe r. At 2:03 a.m., they reque sted an evidenc e tec hnician, who a rrived at 2:41
a.m. Ste

ph e n H am lin Acc ordingto Hamlin, he was leaving the Wal-Mart and signa led to turn left. He was stopped by the police a lmost i mmediately afte r turningon to the highw ay . The off icer informed him that he had bee n stopped for a

broken he adlig ht. The off icer asked f or his lice nse and insurance . Acc ording04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 5- to Hamlin, when the officer came back, his attit ude had c ompletely chang ed, and he started a sking Hamlin about his prior ar rests for possession of methampheta m i n e. T h e officer asked f or conse nt to searc h the vehicle , and Hamlin g ave consent. According to Hamlin, the officer searc hed the car

“ at le a st thr e e to f

our t ime s, and

the re we re oth e r u

nit s th a t stop pe d an d sea

rc he d it a s w e ll. ” Ha

mli n was then a sked by

the other of

fice r for consent to se arc h his pe rson. Hamlin testified that only afte r being“intimidated” for

about fiftee n minutes did he consent to the sea rch of his person. F urth e r , a c c o r d i n g t o H am l i n , h e w a s a s k e d t o g i v e c o n s e n tt o s e ar c h h i s p e r s o na b o u tth i rtyfi ve to f or ty min ute s a ft e r t

he ini tia l sto p. Ha

mli n a lso te sti fi e d th a t a ft e r t he ini tia l st op , “ it w a s w e ll
over a n hour-a nd-a- half be fore [t he off

icer s] got a ca se number. ” An d , Hamli n estimated that the entire stop lasted two to two-a nd-a- half hours. M OT I ON T O S U PPRE SS Hamlin does not contest t he initial stop of his vehicle; he a dmits t hat his headlig ht was br ok e n. Ins te a d, Ha

mli n a rgue s th at th e tr ia l cou

rt e rr e d in no t g ra nti nghis mot ion

to s up pr e ss beca use his detention was unc onstitut ionally prolong ed. In a motion to suppress, we “view the rec ord in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s conclusion and r ever se the judg ment only if it is outside the zone of r easona ble disag ree ment.” Sta te v. Dixon , 206 S.W .3d 587, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “ We give almost total defer ence to a trial court’s e x press or implied dete rmination of historical fa cts and re view de nov o the cour t’s application of the law of se arc h and seizure to those fa cts.” Id. Hamlin argues that once Offic er Tijerina obtained his dr iver’s lice nse and pr oof of insura nce, and then r an a c omputer che ck that did not result i n an y o u t s tanding war rants, Of fice r Tijerina ’s investigation into t he tra ffic violation wa s over, a nd Hamlin should have be en allowe d to leave.04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 6- Thus, Hamlin argues he w as illeg ally detained be cause the offic er w as co n du cting a “f ishing expedition” in viol ation of the F ourth Amendment to the Constituti on. Whil e it is true t hat once the purpose of a traffic stop has been satisfied, the stop may not be used as a fishing ex pedition to discover unr elated c riminal activity and that any

continued dete ntion must be s up p o rt ed by

additional rea sonable suspicion, Da v is v . S tate , 9 4 7 S. W. 2 d

2 4 0 , 2 4 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1997), in this case, Ha mlin gave consent to s ea rc h his vehicle a nd person. Revie wing the re cord in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s ruling, w e note that Of fice r Tijerina

testified that imme diate ly

a ft er condu c tin g the c omp ute r c he c k, he a sk e d f or and wa s g ra nte d c on se nt t o
se arc h th e ve hic le . O ff

ic e r L a ur e nz te sti fi e d th a t wh ile Of fi c e r Ti je ri na wa s c on du c tin g the ve hic le
sear ch, he as k ed and wa s g rante d consent to sea rch H amlin’s person. “ Mere ly reque sting such consent doe s not amount to an unlawful seizure, and neither pr obable c ause nor rea sonable suspicion is require d for the of

fice r to ask.” Gu e rre ro v. Sta te , No. 04-04-00684- CR, 2005 W L2438315, at *2 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 20 05 , n o p e t.) (n ot d e signate d f or pu bli c a tio n) ; se e als o J

am es v . S tate , 10 2 S.W.3 d 162 , 173 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Worth 20 03 , pe t. re f’ d) . “N or do e s th e e nc ounte r b e c ome a fur ther de tention simpl y

due to the re quest for pe rmission to search.” Gu e rre ro , 2005 WL24 38315, at *2. Thus, we hold that Hamlin was not ill eg ally detained. See id. (holding that beca use def endant g ave c onsent to sear ch, defenda nt was not illega lly detained e ven thoug h office r had a lrea dy g iven defe ndant a ve rbal wa

rningfor tra ffic violation).04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

2 ... W e n o t e that t he S t ate a rgu es that H am l i n ha s wa i ve d t his s ec o nd i ssue . H o w ev er, we ne ed no t ad d ress wa i v er a s w e ar e u ph ol di n g t h e t r i al cou r t ’ s cr edi bi l i t y det er mi n at i on re g ar di n g wh et h er t h e s ea r ch e x ce ede d t h e s cope o f H a m lin’s c o n se n t.

- 7- C ONS E NT T O S E ARCH P E RS ON Hamlin also argues that (1) the State fa iled to s h o w by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that Hamlin’s conse nt to searc h his person wa s voluntary , and (2) even if his consent was voluntar

y , the
se arc h o f h is p e rs on

e xce e de d th e sc op e of

his c on se nt. 2 Vo luntari ne ss i s a

qu e sti on of fa c t to be de te rm ine d f

ro m th e tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s. Oh io v . R ob ine tte , 5 19 U. S. 3 3, 40 (1 99 6)
. I f vo luntari ne ss i s c ha lle ng e d in the tr ia l c ourt , th e State under the United States Constit ution must prove voluntariness of consent by a pre pondera nce of the
e v idence
. Car

mo uc hev . S

tate , 10 S.W .3d 323, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Under the Texas Co n s ti tu ti o n , th e State must prove voluntar iness by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Id. Fu rt h er , wh en,
a s h e re , a tr ia l c ourt

do e s n ot e nte r f

ind ing s o f f

a c t w he n d e nyinga

mot ion to s up pr e ss, we mus t “vie w t h e evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s ruling a nd assume that the tria l court made implicit finding s of fact t hat s upport its ruling as l ong as those finding s are supported by the re cord.” Ha rri

so n v . S tate , 2 05 S.W. 3d

54 9, 55 2 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ). An d, we a ff or d a lmo st total defe renc e to the trial c ourt’s ruling s on cre dibilit y questions. Id. Of fi c e r L a ur e nz te sti fi e d th at w hil e Of fi c e r T ije ri na

se arc he d H amli n’ s c ar, he a sk e d H amli n to come to the back of the car with him. Offic er L aure nz then asked Hamlin if he had any thing on his pe rs on that Of

fi c e r L a ur e nz ne e de d to kn ow a

bo ut. Ac c or din g to Of

fi c e r L a urenz , Ha ml in responde d, “No.” Offic er L aure nz then asked Hamlin if he could sear ch Hamlin’s person. Off icer L a ur e nz te sti fi e d, “ He sa id, y e ah, he did n’ t hav e a pr ob le m withit. So, the n I sta rt e d to se arc h h im, and I found a small c lear

plastic bag g ie” of

what appe are d to be methamphetamine in Hamlin’s rig ht04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 8- front jeans pocket. On cross-e x amination, when asked i f he did a pat-down sear ch, Of fice r L aure nz replied, “ Iasked him i f he had any thing on him that I neede d to know about, at which time he said, no. Ithen aske d if Icould sea rch , and he sa id, y es.” O ffice r L aure nz then confirmed that he never do e s a pat- do wn

se arc h w ith out f

ir st a sk ingfo r c on se nt. In contra st, Hamlin testified that at fi rs t , h e did not give c onsent to sear ch his person. Ac c or din gto H amli n, Of fi c e r L a ur e nz to ld h im t o p ut hi s hands a g a ins t th e c ar s o th a t he c ou ld
se arc h H amli n. Ha

mli n te sti fi e d th at af

te r fi ft e e n minute s of Of

fi c e r L a ur e nz “ int imi dat[in g ]” h im and of him repeatedly

telling the of

fice r “no,” Hamlin finally “[p] ut my

hands ag ainst the ca

r and le t him searc h me.” And, acc ording to Hamlin, when Office r L aure nz conducte d the sea rch, “ he turne d pockets inside out and took eve ry thing out of [his] pockets.” Hamlin also emphasizes that althoug h office rs have written conse nt forms, Hamlin was not asked to sig n a wr i t t en co nsent form. How ever , Offic er L aure nz testi fied that they did not use the fo rm s o n th e night i n que sti on be c a us e the y did no t hav e the fo rm s with the m on that pa rt ic ula r n ig ht. In revie wing the evidenc e under our standar d of revie w, we find no err or on the part of the trial court. Whether

Hamlin nonchala

ntly g ave c onsent, as testified to by Offic er L aure nz, or whether he wa s intim idated into g iving c onsent, as testified to by Hamlin, is a cre dibilit y question. L ikewise, wh e the r H amli n wa s no t a sk e d to sign a wr itt e n c on se nt fo rm be c a us e he , in fa c t, ne ve r g ave c on se nt, or whe ther he was not aske d to sign a written consent form beca use none wer e available on the nig ht in question is also a cre dibilit y question. Sim ilarly , whether Hamlin consente d only

to a pat-down
se arc h a nd wh e the r O ff

ic e r L a ur e nz e xce e de d th e sc op e of that con se nt by pu lli ngout hi s p oc ke ts is a c re dib ili ty

qu e sti on . T he tr ia l c ourt ob se rv e d th e de me ano r o f t he wi tne sse s and

jud g e d th e ir
c re dib ili ty . We mus t de fe r t o th e tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f s uc h c re dib ili ty qu e sti on s.04
- 08
- 00 25 7- CR

- 9- C ONCL US I ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice DO NO T PU B L I SH