## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0303- 10 G ER A R D O LU JAN , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE EI GH TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

EL P ASO CO UNTY J OHNS ON , J. , f

i l ed a concurri ng opi ni on .
C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N El Paso County

deputy sheriff s set up a che ckpoint, o s t ensi bly to targ et uninsured a

nd unlicensed dr ivers. That claim is unde rmined by the prese nce of a drugdog at a c heckpoint nea r the Mex i can bor der a

nd I -10, a know n route for drugtransport. Dr

ug dog s are trained to de tect the prese nce of

illega l drug s ; they

are less useful for

sniffing out expi red dr iver’s lice nses. Mere
me mbe rs hip in t

he a ssi g ne d unit

do e s n ot a de qu a te ly

e xpla in t he do g ’s pr e se nc e . Th e a ssi g ne d unit

w a s n o ta t r a f f i c u n i t ; a s t h e m a

j o r i t y n o t e s , i th a d

m u l t i p l e d

u t i e s , i n c l u d i n g r a c i n g p r e v e n t i o n , D W I, traff ic enforce ment, and, notably , narc otics. The deputies’ regular responsibilit ies and spec ialized2

training wer e not re levant to a c heckpoint for only licenses a nd insurance , and if the c heckpoint we re truly for only licenses a

nd insurance , the dog would be a valuable resour ce wasted a nd better use d at a location where its specialized skill s were in de mand. I ag ree with the court of a ppeals that the
c he c kp oin t w a s a

su bte rf ug e fo r g e ne ra l c ri min a l e nf or c e me nt. Th a t sa id, a

pp e lla nt d id n ot h a ve a dr ive r’ s lic e ns e and wa s th e re fo re su

bje c t to arr e st. Hi s passe n g e r h a d n o id e n ti f ic a ti o n , b u t d id h a v e o u ts ta n d in g w ar

r an ts , an d h e w a s ar

r e s te d

. The chec kpoint was i n an are a known f or drugtransport. Appe llant and his passeng er ha d differ ent stories about whe re they had been. Appellant was extremely nervous. The deputy patted appe llant down, an a

ppropriate action whe n an ar rest is possible and eve n more a ppropriate when circ umstances a

nd training wo u ld rea sonably aler t an offic er that things we re not a s they might appea r to be. The pat-down r evea led a lar g e amount of c ash. The c ircumstance s, as a whole , g ave rise to re asonable suspicion that criminal ac tivity , specific ally drugtransport, wa s afoot. An d ap p el l an t gav e p erm i s s i o n t o s ea rc h h i s ca r. E v en wi t h o u tt h e a l er tfr o m t h e d ru g d o g, the drug s were very

likely to be found. L aw officer s know t hat door pa nels are a popular

location fo r c on tr a ba nd and c ou ld hav e manu a lly

inv e sti g a te d th e po ssi bil ity purs ua nt t o th e c on se nt t o
sear ch. F urther, a

ppellant was subject to arre st for lac k of a dr iver’s lice nse, and his passe ng er w as under a rre st. Whether t he deputy arr ested appellant for lac k of a lice nse or possession of c ontrolled substances a fter a

manual sea

rch of the ca r, no one w ould have been available to take possession of the ca r, and the car would have been impounded, leading to an inventory sear ch or a

dog sniff at the imp ound lot

. Be cause Ithink that the drug s would have been discovere d without the dog’ s alert, I concur in t he jud g me nt o f t

he Court
.3

Filed: January

12, 2011 Pub lis h