# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

Eric WILLRICH , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR11728A Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding 1 Opinion by: Irene Rios , Justice Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivere d and Filed: March 13, 2024
AFFIRMED After the trial court denied a ppellant Eric Willrich ’s pre trial motion to suppress , Willrich pled no lo con tendere to the possession of a controlled substance . T he trial court sentenced Willrich to six years ’ imprisonment pursuant to a plea bar gain ag reement

. In a single issue, Willrich asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because h e was illegally detained , arrested, and searched

. See U.S. C ONST . amend. IV; see also T EX
. C ONST

. art. I, § 9. We affirm.

1 The Ho norable Frank J. Castro presided over Eric Willrich’s plea proceeding and signed the Final Judgment of Conviction by Court

— Waiver of Jury Trial

. The Honorable Andrew W. Carruthers presided over the suppression proceedings and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law.04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 2

- B ACKGROUND Willrich sought to suppress drugs discovered from a warrantless search and his warrantless
arrest. At the suppression hearing, the State presented t hree witnesses, Detective Cameron Helle , Officer Alejandro Sandoval , a nd Officer Franklin Millstid, all with the San Antonio Police Department

. Detective Helle , a narcotics detective, testified that on the day in question, he was conducting surveillance on a suspected narcotics house from which police had seized narcotics in the past

. According to Detective Helle, Paul White arrived at the house in a pick

- up truck, exited the truck, and went inside the house for a short time. Soon thereafter, White and Alejandro Alvarado came out of the house and got into the tru ck. Detective Helle followed the truck , now driven by Alvarado, to a shopping complex referred to as the Quarry. Alva rado drove slowly through various parking lots, parked for a while, then drove to another parking lot and parked away from the vehicles par ked at the business. Neither White nor Alvarado exited the truck. Rather, a fter being parked for a short time, Detective Helle saw another vehicle park directly next to the passenger side of the truck

. The driver of that vehicle , Willrich , then immediately exit ed his vehicle and g ot into t he back seat passenger - side of the truck

. Detective Helle then explained that he saw White, who was sitting in the front passenger’s seat, turning his body around and moving his arms back and forth w ith Willrich , who was still seated in the back. D etective Hell e acknowledged he did not witness a n actual hand

- to

- hand transaction

. However, based on his surveillance and narcotics investigation experience, the vehicles ’ parked locations next to each other and away from other vehicles , and Willrich ’s immediate entry into the backseat of the truck , “it appeared to [ Detective Helle ] that they were conducting a hand

- to

- hand transaction ”

— a “ narcotics transaction . . . inside that truck

. ” At that time , Detective Helle requested uniformed police officers approach the occupants of the truck.04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 3

- Just prior to the officers approaching t he truck, Detective Helle saw White reach down

. De tective Helle testified this is “indicative of po tentially trying to conceal something or discard something.” At some point, Willrich had moved over in the backseat behind Alvarado. The uniformed officers approached the truck , c ontact ing the occupants. Detective Helle then followed, opened the front passenger

- side door and asked White to exit , and not ified him h e was being detained for a narcotics investigation. During this time, Dete ctive Helle observed a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance on the front passenger

- side floorboard underneath the front
passenger seat

. Detective Helle testified the area where the baggie was located was within both White s ’s and Willrich’s reach. Detective Helle also found on the back passenger’s seat and floorboard a “white powdery . . . looked like crack crumbs is the best way to describe it” substance. White informed the offic ers that Willrich was his “drug dealer [,] ” and that he was in the parking lot to “buy drugs.” White was buying $1,000 worth of crack

. Detective Helle also spoke
to Alvarado, who told police that Willrich was in the truck to give White crack , but Alvarado though t White had given Willrich $2,000

. Officer Sandoval and Officer Millstid testified th ey waited nearby in the Quarry until Detective Helle direct ed them to drive their marked patrol units up to the scene. According to Officer Sandoval , when he pulled his car on the right side of the truck, he saw three people in the truck , and Willrich was seated in the back seat behind front passenger White

. Officer Sandoval received permission from White to search his person. According to Officer Sandoval, he found a crystal or white rock

- like substance in White’s pocket, and after claiming it was salt, White later admitted it was crack cocaine. Officer Sandoval arrested White and read him his warnings before Detective Helle questioned him. Willrich gave O f ficer Sandoval permission to retrieve his Texas ID from his car parked beside the truck when Officer Sandoval asked for Willrich’s identification

.04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 4

- According to Officer Millstid , when he arrived on the scene , he saw the car parked to the right, or passenger

- side of the truck. As Officer Millstid approached the driver’s side of the truck, he noticed Alvarado and White in the front seats, and W illrich in the back seat , now seated behind the driver

. A lvarado gave Officer Millsti d his Texas ID

. Alvarado did not have a driver’s license. Officer Millstid testified he read Willrich his warnings and found approximate l y $2,000 in cash

on Willrich ’s person

. Willrich moved to suppress all the evidence obtained contending he was unlawf ully detained and then unlawfully arrested. The trial court denied Willrich’s motion to suppre s s and made several oral findings of fact

— which followed the testimonies of D etective Helle , Officer Sandoval, and Officer Millstid , and their accounts of the events leading up to the search of the truck, the results of the search, and Willrich’s arrest and subsequent search . The trial court also made oral conclusions of law , including:
1. Willrich, as “merely a passenger in the [truck] f rom which the crack cocaine was seized,” had no expectation of privacy in the truck and lacked standing to challenge the search.
2. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause to arrest [Willrich] for possession of a controlled s ubstance. ”
3. The approximate $2,000 in cash found on Willrich’s person resulted from a search “incident to a lawful arrest.”
In exchange for a plea bargain , Willrich pled no lo cont endere to count one of the indictment

— possession of a controlled substance w ith the intent to deliver cocaine in a n amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, a first

- degree felony. 2 The trial court accepted Willrich’s plea , and pursuant to the agreement, sentenced Willrich to six years ’

2 We note that despite the plea bar gain agreement referring to Willrich ’s plea pertaining to count one of the indictment

— possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams , a first

- degree felony

— the trial court’s final judgment ref lects Willrich was only convicted o f possess ing cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, a second

degree felony. Compare T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112 (a), (d) , with id. § 481.115 (a), (d).04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 5

- imprisonment. Willrich subsequently appe aled the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to
suppress. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard of review. Valtierra v. State , 310 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010 ) . First, we give almost total deference to the trial court ’ s factual determinations. Id . The trial court is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimon y. Id . The trial court is entitled to believe or disbelieve all or part of the witness ’ s testimony

— even if that testimony is uncontroverted

— because the trial court has the opportunity to observe the witness ’ s demeanor and appearance. Id

. Second, we review de novo the application of law to the facts, and we will affirm a ruling that is “reasonably supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the
case.” Id . at 447

– 48. I f the trial court makes express findings of fact, as it has here, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and determine whether the evidence supports the factual findings. Id. at 447

. A PPLICABLE L AW The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. See U.S.
C ONST . amend. IV; State v. Weaver , 349 S.W.3d 521 , 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011 )

. “Under the Fourth Amendment, a brief investigatory detention must be justified by reasonable suspicion.” Matthews v. State , 431 S.W.3d 596, 602

– 03 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citations omitted). “A police officer has reasonable suspicion to detain if he has sp ecific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him reasonably to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.” Derichsweiler v. State , 348 S.W.3d 906, 914 (Tex . Crim. App. 2011) (citing Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21

– 22 ( 1968 ) ) (other04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 6

- citations omitted). This is an objective standard that disregards the officer ’ s actual subjective intent and instead looks to whether an objectively justifiable basis existed for the detention. See id

. We also look to the totality of the circumstances, and if combined they “reasonably suggest the imminence of criminal conduct, an investigat ive detention is justified.” Id . In other words, we focus on whether the totality of reliable information

— specific , articulable facts combined with reasonable inferences derived from those facts

— lead s to the reasonable conclusion that the appellant was committing, or soon would be engaged in some type of criminal activity. See id . at 915

– 16. Upon lawful arrest, the search of the person is justified by the need to assure officer safety and the need to pr otect evidence from concealment or destructio n without any need for a particularized showing that weapons or evidence are likely to be found. See Price v. State , 662 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing U nited States . v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 2 35 (1973))

. A NALYSIS In th is case, Detective Helle ’s testimony regarding (1) observing White and Alvarado leaving a house known for narcotic transaction s and then traveling to a shopping complex and parking away from the business’s regular traffic, (2) coupled with seeing another car park next to the truck and watching Willrich immediately get into the back seat of the truck with White and Alvarado , and (3) th en watching White ’s arm movements and turning back towards Willrich in what appeared to be a hand

- to

- hand transaction all suppor t Detective Helle ’s reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the truck, especially W hite and Willrich, were committing a crimi nal offense

. When considering t he observation of the sequence of events, in addition to considering Detective Helle’s experience in prior narcotics investigations , Detective Helle had specific, articulable facts that, when combined with reasonable inferences, led him to reasonabl y conclude that the occupants04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 7

- were engaging or had en gaged in criminal activity and thus he request ed the uniformed officers approach the occupants. Next, Detective Helle ’s testimony that as the uniformed officer s approach ed the truck , he

saw White reach down , and that in Detective Helle’s experience th at indicates a person hiding something , further supported reasonable suspicion that a drug offense was occurring or had occurred. Both Detective Helle and Officer Sandoval observ ed Willrich sitting behind White . This , in addition to Detective Helle stating the plastic baggie containing cocaine was within Willrich’s reach as well as White ’ s reach , supports Willrich’s direct involvement in the alleged offense. Crack cocaine was found in White’s pocket, and h e informed Detective Helle that Willrich was his drug dealer and that he was there to buy drugs from Willrich. Al varado also claimed
W illrich was there to sell White drugs. E vidence further supported that White paid Willrich at least $1,000 for the drugs. The evidence , including Detective Helle ’s testimony that he saw “crack crumbs” in the back seat where Willrich s at , support the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that under the circumstances, law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to detain and probable cause to arrest Willrich for possession of a controlled substance. Derichsweiler , 348 S.W.3d at 914 ; see also Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964) (establishing that probable cause to arrest exists when, at the moment of the arrest, the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge from reasonably tru stworthy information were sufficient t o warrant a prudent man in believing that the particular person had committed or was committing an offense)

. B ecause officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and probable cause to arrest Willrich, officers were justified in conduct ing a sea rch incident to arrest

. See Price , 662 S.W.3d at 433.
T herefore, we hold the trial court did not err in denying Willrich’s pretrial motion to suppress. See Valtierra , 310 S.W.3d at 447

– 48.04

- 22

- 00435

- CR

- 8

- We overrule Willrich’s appellate issue.
C ONCLUSION We conclude the trial court did not err in denying Willrich’s motion to suppress. Therefore,

we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Irene Rios , Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH