NO. 07-08 -007 3-CV 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 B JAN UA RY

13, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lan t

v. 1998 TOY OTA LAN D CR UI SER , O KLAH OM A TAG CM N- 633

VIN JT3H T05J9W 0007179, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

_____ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO. 58, 915 -A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. The Stat e appea ls f ro m the tr ial court ’s denial of its moti on to forfeitthe 1998 Toyota Land C ru is er

of Col e Aus ti n D onel son. W e ag re e, rev erse, and re mand. Back gr ound The Land Cru iser was sei z ed after D onel son w as found sel li ng mar ij uana fro m it

. Don els on s ought to recov er the v ehi cl e. At i ss ue was the p ro pr iety of the d etent ion that
re sul ted i n hi s a rrest

.In a f o r f e i tu re p ro c e e d i n g , t h e S ta te m u s t s h o w th a t t h e o ff i c e r h a d p ro b a b l e c a u s e to re a s o n a b ly 1 b e l i e v e th a t a s u b s ta n ti a l c o n n e c ti o n e x i s te d b e tw e e n th e p ro p e rty to b e s e i ze d a n d c rim i n a l a c ti v i ty

. S ta te v. $11 , 014. 00 , 82 0 S

. W

. 2d 78 3, 78 4 (T ex . 19 91 ). 2 In pe rmi tti ng D onel son to recov er the Cr uis er , the tri al cour t det er mined, v ia w ri tten
conc lus ion s o f law , that the int eract ion between the ar re sti ng off ic er and Don els on was not
a con sensu al enco unt er but rath er an “investigative stop.” “[T]h ere w ere no [] articulab le facts suffici ent t o g iv e ri se to a ra ti onal i nferenc e tha t a cr ime w as bei ng co mmitt ed,” the
cour t c onti nued. Thus, the “i nv est ig ati v e det enti on . . . amounted to an i ll eg al sto p l ack ing in suffici ent a rt ic ula ble facts or probabl e c ause. ” Moreov er , the smell ing of m ar ij uana by an officer

oc cur re d “ after the i ll eg al inv est ig ati v e det enti on[,] and probabl e c ause . . . canno t be based on fact s d is cov ered after the il leg al detent ion .” So, becau se the d etent ion
w as il leg al, the Stat e l ack ed bas is to forfeit the v ehi cl e. W e hav e been ask ed by the Stat e 1 to rev iew thi s d eci si on. Law and Its Appl

icati on W hether the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on reg ardin g the nature of the detent ion i s s ound depends upon w hether i t abu sed it s d is creti on. Acc ordin g to the Tex as Supreme C our t,
w e det er mine thi s by appl y ing the sta ndard of rev iew dev elo ped by

the Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appeal s i n Guz

m an v. State , 955 S.W .2d 8 5 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. State v . $21 7,590. 00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W .3d 6 31, 6 34 n. 3 ( Tex . 2000 ). Un d e r that sta ndard, g re at deferenc e is acc orded the tri al cour t’ s int er pretati on of

hist or ic al facts. For

d v . St ate, 158 S.W .3d 488, 493 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005) , Guz m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d at 87. This is so beca use th e trial court ha s the sole auth ori t y t o assess the credibility of the wi tne sses; si mply put, i t may

ch oose w ho to bel iev e. State v . R oss, 32 S .W .3 d 85 3, 8 55 ( Tex

. C r i m.Shor t t est i f i ed t hat t he v ehi cl e was p ar k ed so m e di st ance f r om t he r est aur ant ’ s ent r ywhi ch see m ed 2 o d d to h im

.

T h e o ff ic e ra ls o te s tif ie d to s e e i n g a n e x c h a n g e o fa $ 5 0 b ill. H o w h e c o u ld d o s o a t n ig h t w h ile 3 si t t i ng i n a di ff er ent v ehi cl e wentune xpl ai ned. 3 App. 2000) ; S ta te v. Ram ir ez , 246 S.W .3d 287 , 289 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2008 , no pe t.). Howev er , l ik e defere nce is not afforded the tr ial cour t’ s appl ic ati on of l aw

to the fact s o r it s int er pretati on of t he law

. For d v . St ate, 158 S.W .3d at 493. Thos e matt ers a re rev iewed de n ovo . Id .; Guz

m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d a t 87. Next, in suppo rtof the l eg al conc lus ion s l is ted a bov e, t he trial c o u rte ntered th e follo w ing findi ng s o f fact : 5. On M ay 11, 200 7, C apt

. Roger Sho rt of the Rand all Coun ty She riff ’s Of f ice w as w or ki ng the Sober

prog ra m in an unmark ed v ehi cl e watc hin g for a lc ohol v iol ati ons and ot her

offenses in the area of Paramount S treet a nd Sou th W est er n. 6. At a pprox imat ely 10:4 0 p.m.

. . . Shor

t, w hil e par ked, obser

v ed a blu e pi ck -u p in the M r. Gatti s p izza p ar ki ng l ot.[ ] The dr iver , l ater i denti fied as C ooper 2 Ma rk H urst W /M 08- 14- 89, was si tti ng i n the pi ck -u p alo n e . A s S hor t was w atc hin g , another v ehi cl e, (a g re en 1998 Toy ota L and C ru is er . . . ), drov e up next t o the bl ue pi ck -u p. H u rs t g ot ou t of hi s p ic k- up and g ot i nto t he .

. . Land Cru iser. Cap t. Shor t c oul d s ee i nto t he v ehi cl e and saw the dr iv er

of th e T o yot a rea ch in to th e ba ckse a t o f th e veh icl e an d grab a ca m o u f la ge back p ack. Sho rt could see Donelso n [w ho was d riv ing the Lan d Cruiser] retrievi ng items f rom t h e b a c kp ack. Sho rt observed tha t Done lson w ould reach back an d forth w ith his rig ht ha nd f rom th e ba ck seat are a an d place someth ing on t he c enter co nsol e.[ ] Shor

t radi oed s ev eral other

off ic ers w ho 3 we re in t h e a r e a o f

t h e p o s s ib le d ru g t ra n s a ct io n . Sh o rta d vis e d two uniforme d of

f icers to ma ke con tact wi th [th e] occu pan ts. 7. Dep uty

Bus hef park ed hi s p atrol unit b e h in d the Land C ru is er w hil e Lt. She ets pa rked his pa trol unit in a p o s ition be hind the cruiser. Capta in Sho rt’s v ehicle was in fron t and to the s id e of the La nd Cruiser. Si mult aneous ly the off ic ers approache d the v ehi cl e on each si de, k nock ed on th e w ind ow

and ordered oc cupan ts [si c] to ro ll do w n hi s w ind ow . The Dep uty cl a im s to h a ve smel led an o dor of marijua na. He re mov ed th e passe nger and d id a patdown search

. Late r the of f icer searche d the v ehicle findi ng mar ij uana un der four

. . . ounce s.4

8. Nei ther

par ty co nsent ed to the search. 9. Cap tai n Shor

t nev er obser v ed anyill eg al act iv ity

or i ll eg al subs tanc e pr ior

to orde ring the two Depu ties to m ake co nta ct w ith the occup ant s. These find ing s d epi ct a s it uati on w herein a peace off ic er , charg ed w it h watc hin g for a lc ohol
re lat ed v iol ati ons and ot her c rimi nal offenses , s aw H urst si tti ng al one i n a p ar ked car at 10:40 at ni g ht wait ing for D onel son. The officer also saw

1) Donel son ar ri v e i n the Land Cr uis er and par k n ext t o H urst, 2)H urst lea v e his v ehi cl e and enter that of D onel son’ s, 3) Do n e ls o n se c u re a b a c k p a c k f ro m t h e re a r of h is c a r, a n d 4 ) Do n e ls o n re p e a t e d ly re m o ve it ems fro m the back pack and pla ce them on the c enter co nsol e of t he v ehi cl e. As sumi ng ar guendot h a tt h e s e ci rc u m s t a n c e s we re in s u f f ic ie n t t o cre a t e p ro b a b le ca u s e t o b e li e ve a cr ime w as in prog re ss , they nev erthel ess w ere unusu al g iv en the ti me and pla ce. And, to an off ic er charg ed w it h c onducti ng su rv eil lan ce in the a re a for alc ohol rela ted a nd ot her offenses , t hey

w ere remini sc ent o f those per formed i n a d ru g transacti o n . Gi v en th at, Shor t had reason abl e s uspi ci on to bel iev e c ri minal acti v ity was afoot. See Hal

l v. State , 74 S. W .3d 5 21, 5 25 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2002, no pet .) (defini ng reaso nabl e s uspi ci on as th e pres en c e of ar

ti c ul ab l e facts w hi c h, w he n c om bi ne d w i th rat i on al i nfe ren c es t he refrom , w oul d all ow

an off ic er

to re asona bly

su spect t hat a par

ti cul ar person has eng ag ed, o r is or soon w il l be eng ag ing , in cr imi nal acti v ity ); State v . Jenni ngs , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 3 3 (T e x. App.–A mari ll o 1997, no p et.)( sta ting thatreason abl e s uspi ci on ar is es w hen t he ci rc umstan ces depi ct the occ ur re nce of unusu al act iv ity , the ex is tenc e of a nex us between the d etai nee and the act iv ity , and the li kenes s o f the unus ual acti v ity to a c ri me). That Shortdid not speci fical ly see anycontraband or il leg al act iv ity matte rs not for inn ocent act iv ity

may i tse lf g iv e r is e to re asona ble su spi ci on. W oods v. State , 956 S.W .2d5

33, 38-39 (Tex. Cri m. App. 199 7). Inde ed, the to tality of the circum stan ces are deter minat iv e, State v. Gar ci a- Can tu , 253 S.W .3d 2 36, 2 44 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ; State
v. Jenni ngs , supra , ev en th ose w hic h w hen v iewed i ndependen tl y of each other

co uld be ind ic ati v e of i nnoce nt act ion

. As sta ted i n W oods , the possi bil ity

of an inn ocentex pla nati on does not d epr iv e the off ic er of the c apaci ty

to enter tai n re a so n a b le suspi ci on of cr imi nal
a ct i v ity . W

oods v. State , 956 S.W .2d at 37. It is “the princip al f unct ion of [the of f icer’s] investig ation . . . to resolv e tha t v eryamb iguity and esta blish w het her the activity is in fact legal or i llegal.” Id. An d, t o f a cil it a te t hat d eter minat ion , t he officer has the author ity

to temporar il y

deta in thos e eng ag ed i n the co nduct

. Johns on v . St ate , 912 S.W .2d 227, 235 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1995)

. And, once the o ff ic er w it ness ing the act iv ity

g athers fact s s uff ic ien t to c re ate reason abl e s uspi ci on, we k nowo f n o th ing thatprohi bit s h im from hav ing othe r law enforc ement personne l under tak e the inv est ig ati on. Shor t had and did as much h ere. Thus, t h e o ffi c e rs w e re a l l o w e d t o t e mp o ra r i l y d e t a i n D o n e l s o n a n d H u rs tb y p a r k i ng behi nd th em to inv est ig ate w hether cr imi nal acti v ity

w as occ ur ri ng . Ad d itiona lly , app roach ing the Lan d Cruiser and d irecting Donelson to low er his
w ind ow was act iv ity

w ell w it hin the ra ng e of per mis si ble co nductonc e reason a b l e s uspi ci on to i nv est ig ate a ro se; i ndeed , mak ing co ntact w it h the deta ine e i s o ften the bestway to
sec ure informati on needed to re sol v e the am big uity m enti oned i n W

oods

. Onc e D onel son lowered his w ind ow and t he officer pur por ted t o s mell mar ij uana, probabl e c ause arose to bel iev e a c ri me w as occ ur ri ng w it hin the v ehi cl e, an d we s o hol d as a matter of law

. InW e n ote t ha t D on el s on al s o a rgu e s t ha t forfei t ure of hi s La nd C rui s er w ou l d a m ou nt t o e x c es s i ve 4 puni shm ent and v i ol at e t he 8 Am endm ent of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. Y et, the a rgu m ent was no t th ra i s e d b e l o w . M o re o v e r, a n d u n l i k e th e c i rc u m s ta n c e s i n th e c a s e u p o n w h i c h h e re l i e s , i

. e. O ne Car , 199 6 D o d g e X-C a b Tru c kW h ite in C o lo r 5 Y C -T 1 7 V IN 3 B 7 H C 1 3 Z 5 T G 1 6 3 7 2 3 v . S ta te , 122 S. W

. 3d 4 22, 427 ( T ex. App. –Beaum ont 200 3, no pet

. ) , t he v ehi cl e’ s i nv ol v em ent i n t he d r ug d eal w as not i nci dent al her e. Donel son not onl yused hi s Lan d Cru i sert o t r anspor t t he m ar i j uana acr oss st at e l i nes but al so t o pr ov i de t he l ocal e f r om w h i c h to c o n s u m m a te th e d ru g s a l e s to a t l e a s t o n e h i g h s c h o o l s tu d e n t. 6 conclu d in g othe rw is e the tr ial co urt er re d, w hic h er ro r lea d to improper ly deny ing the appl ic ati on for forfeiture. 4 Ag ain , we not e tha t a tr ial co urt may w ell opt to di sbeli ev e the tes ti mony of any
w it ness, wh e ther

co ntrov erted o r not. Sta te v . Ram ir ez , 246 S.W .3d a t 289

. Y et, that tr uis m has li ttl e i mport ance here s inc e our dec is ion i s founded upon t he facts w hic h the tr ial
cour t found t o ex is t. So, w e are noteng ag ing i n any effort t o re- w eigh t h e ev ide nce or re sol v e c re dib il ity

i ss ues. I nst ead, w e merel y appl ied the law to the fact s, w hic h we may do de n ovo . Guz

m an v . St ate , 955 S.W .2d a t 89. Ac co rd in gly, we re vers e th e ju d gm e n t o f th e tr ia l co u rtan d rem a n d th e pro ce e d in g.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Hanco ck, J., dissen ts.