### NUM BER 13-07- 516- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
JOSE ISA

A C SA NC HEZ , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of Sa n Patricio C ou nty , T exas . 

# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Jos e Is aac Sanc hez , pl eaded n olo co ntendere to the o ff ense of poss ess ion of le ss t h a n o n e g ra m of coc ain e. T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . §§ 481.115 (b ), 481. 102( 3) (D ) ( Ver non 2003). The tr ial courtsentenc ed Sanchezto eig hteen months i n the Tex as Dep artm e n t o f Cri minal Ju sti ce–S tate Jai l Di v is ion , s uspen ded t heT he vi deo act ual l y not es t he h our as 1: 42 a

. m
. , but t he o ff i cer cl ar i f i ed t hat t he t i m e was a n ho ur beh i nd 1 because i t had not bee n ad j ust ed t o a day l i ght sav i ngs t i m e cha nge. 2 sent ence for t hree years, and p laced S anch ez on co mm unity supervisi on. The trial court also i m p o s e d a $1,5 00 f ine an d susp end ed Sa nche z ’s driv er’s license. On ap pea l, S a n c h e za rg u e s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b y d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Sanc hezfil ed a moti on to suppre ss cocai ne seiz ed f ro m his truc k after a dog al erted to i ts pr esenc e dur ing a t ra ff icst op. The tr ial co urt hea rd ev ide nce o n t h e moti on, from
w hic h the foll ow ing nar ra ti v e i s d er iv ed. Trooper C layton C ohea t est ified at the h ear ing thaton N ov embe r 1 4 , 2 0 0 6, S anche z was d rivin g a t r a c t o r-t ra ile r no rt h b o u n d on U.S . Hi ghwa y 77 . S a n ch e z w a s d e live rin g a loa d of li mes. U si ng radar equip m ent, Coh ea det er mined that Sanc hezw as trav eli ng at 3 9 m il e s p e r h o u r i n a 3 5 m il e -p e r- h o u r zo n e
. Co h e a t e s t if ie d t h a twh e n h e “p u ll e d u p n e xt to” San chez, he w as still trav eling at 39 m iles per hou r. Cohe a stat ed th at Highw ay 77 b etwee n B ro w nsvil le and Corpus Christi is w ellknow n as a m ajo r corr ido r for i ll eg al act iv ity , i ncl udi ng the traff ic ki ng of dr ug s a nd i ll eg al immi g r a n t s
. C o h e a e mp l o y e d h i s e me rg e n c y l i g h t s , a c t i v a t i n g h i s d a s h b o a rd ca mera. Acc ordin g to the t ime- sta mp on t he v ide o, t he s top o cc ur re d at 2:42 a.m. Before speak ing 1
w it h Sanc hez , Coh ea w alk ed to t he frontof the v ehi cl e and, us ing hi s fla shl ig ht, chec ked the v ehi cl e’s reg is trati on and ins pect ion st ic kers l ocat ed on the w ind shi eld

. W hil e C ohea’ s l ig ht w as poi nted at t he w ind shi eld , he no ti ced Sanc hezbehav ing
ner v ousl y . Coh ea s aw

Sanc hezmaki ng “ furti v e mov ements i n the cab ” and reachi ng3

around, abov e and bel ow hi msel f, “fra nti cal ly

. . . ex ci tedl y , q uic kl y .” Sa nchezthen z ipp ed the c urtai n b e h in d t he dr iv er ’s se at c los ed, w hic h s eemed unus ual to Coh ea. Sanc hez lat er tol d C ohea t hat h e z ipp ed th e c urtai n c los ed to ke ep c ig ar ette smok e “ from get ting int o hi s v ehi cl e.” Coh ea approache d Sanc hez , i denti fied hims elf, and tol d Sanc hezthathe s topped the t ru ck bec a u se S a n chezw as speed ing

. After Coh ea as ked for San chez ’s l ic ense, ins ur ance, and bil l of ladi ng , Sa nchezreach ed around an d l ooked around q uic kl y i n an
ex ci ted mann er
. Coh ea te sti fied th at S anche zl ooked as if he w er e l ostand not t he w ay “a nor mal tr uck

dr iv er w oul d do [si c]. ” Sanc hez’s h a n ds w er e s haki ng co nsi derabl y w hen he handed the d ocument s t o Coh ea. Coh ea te sti fied th at, based on h is ex per ien ce, the shak ing w as more than the usual ner

v ousne ss a dr iv er

demons trates w hen s topped. W hen C ohea i nspec ted Sanc hez ’s paper

w or k, he not ic ed it w as not in order

. Sanc hezhad w ri tten the w ro ng date in his logbook. It ap pea red tha t he ha d be en “of f” fo r a couple of

days. Cohe a an d San chez w alked to the rear of the tracto r-trailer, in f ront of t he p atrol car. W hen as ked q uest ion s, Sanc hezw oul d notmake ey e c ontac t w it h C ohea. Al so, des pit e t h e co o l N o ve m b e r we a t h e r a n d t h e e a rl y h o u r, Co h e a n o t ic e d s we a t r u n n in g d o wn Sanc hez ’s forehea d and cheek s. Cohea als o notic ed that an ar ter y i n Sanc hez ’s nec k w as
v is ibl y pul sat ing

. Coh ea as ked Sanc hezw hat h e w as transpo rt ing

. Sanc hezrespo nded that he w as h a u ling a l oad of l imes

. This w as cons is tent w it h hi s p aper w or k. C ohea t hen as ked Sanc hezhow

much he w as bei ng pai d for his tr ip. Sa nchez re p e a te d t h e q uest ion to Coh ea. Fi nal ly , C ohea as ked Sanc hezi f ther e w as anythi ng i ll eg al in his tr uck

. Sanc hez4

then took

tw o s teps bac k from C ohea. Base d on his ex per ien ce, Coh ea felthe h ad probabl e c ause to s ear ch the v ehi cl e, and he ask ed San chezfor p er mis si on at2:55 a.m. At firs t, Sanc hezrefused. Coh ea th en cal led for a dr ug dog to ins pectthe v ehi cl e. After the d og w as en ro u te f rom Refug io, Sa n ch e z ga v e per mis si on to se ar ch the t ra il er but not t he c ab of the tr uck

. Coh ea compl eted his se ar ch of the trail er at some t ime betw een 3: 08 and 3: 1 5 a .m
. C ohea testif ied tha t a K9 han dler arriv ed w ith a dog at 3: 30 a .m . Th e do g alerte d to th e prese nce of narc oti cs at 3:32 a.m. Coh ea th en di sc ov er ed c ocai ne i n the ca b of the tr uck

. At the hea ring on the mot ion to supp ress, the State played Cohea ’s dashb oard
camera v ide o. The first par t of the v ide o s how s t he trail er bei ng pul led ov er
. Next, the
v ide o s how s C ohea w alk ing to the front o f the tr uck

. After sev er al m in u tes , t he v ide o show s C ohea an d Sa n ch e z walk to t he bac k o f the tr uck

. The v ide o s how s t hat w hen Co h e a st a rt e d t o a s kqu e s t io n s , S a n c h e z t e n d e d t o lo o k a t h is p a p e rwo rk a n d a vo id e ye cont actw it h C ohea. W hen Cohea ask ed if Sanc hezhad anythi ng i ll eg al in his tr uck , t he
v ide o c lea rl y

sh ow s S anche zst ep bac k a w ay from C ohea. Sanc hezw as indi cte d for the off ense of poss ess ion of a cont ro ll ed subst ance. Id. §§ 4 81. 115 (b); 481 .10 2(3)(D). San chez filed a mo tion to supp ress the co ca in e foun d in the cab of t he tr uck , w hic h he all eg es w as il leg all y obtai ned pursuant to an il leg al detent ion

. After a hear ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied the moti on. The tr ial co urt’ s o rd er

st ates thati t found ( 1) Sanc hezw as speed ing at the t ime of the initial stop ; (2) San chez w as ope rating a com me rcial v ehicle on Hig hway 77, w hich is a k now n c or ri dor

for s mug g li ng dr ug s a nd undo cument ed persons i nto t his st ate; (3 ) San chez fran tically

or ex citedly began search ing the cab o f the truck when Coh ea f irst5

approache d; ( 4) Sanc hezw as shak ing and w oul d not make ey e cont actw it h C ohea w hen they mov ed to the re ar

of the v ehi cl e; ( 5) Sanc h e z’s n e ck wa s p uls ati ng and he w as
sw eati ng as C ohea as ked to search the v ehi cl e; (6 ) Sanc hez re por ted t hat h e z ipp ed th e
cur tai n to the c ab shut in order to “k eep c ig ar ette smok e outof the s lee pin g co mpart ment,” y et no one w as in the c ab s moki ng ; ( 7) Sanc hezi ncor re ctl y note d hi s t ime off

i n the l og boo k; and (8) Sanche zstepp ed b ack f rom Coh ea w hen Cohe a asked for conse nt to search the v ehi cl e. The cour

t hel d tha t “[ e ]a ch of these it ems w er e des cr ibe d as i ndi cat ors o f decep ti on and poss ibl e cri minal acti on upon w hic h the of ficer rel ied to re q uestper mis si on to sea rch the truck a nd th en to subse quently hold the def end antfor som e t we n t y extra min ute s aw aiting the arriv al of a K -9 u nit.” A ccordingly , the co urt held that“” [t]a ken a s a
w hole , the of

f icer had s u f

f ic ie n t informa tion, w hich ba sed o n his experience , and all
surroun ding circumsta nces just if ied a te mp orary det aining of the defend ant w hile a K-9 un it
ar ri v ed.” The cour

t held that “[ t]he addi ti onal del ay ca used by

w ait ing for t he K- 9 uni t w as approx imat ely

tw enty m inu tes ,” w hic h w as not unrea sonab le. The cour t denied the moti on to sup press. S a n c h e z t h e n p le a d e d n o lo co n t e n d e re t o t h e ch a rg e s a n d wa s a d ju d ge d gu il t y. The tr ial co urt s entenc ed San chezt o ei g hteen months ’ impr is onment, sus pended the sent ence for three y ears, and placed Sanch ez on comm unity supe rv ision. T he trial cou rt als o im p o se d a $ 1 ,500 fine. The tr ial co urt c erti fied th at t his ca se did not inv olv e a p lea barg ain and that Sanc hezhad a r ig ht t o appea l. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. St and ard o f Rev iew By a s ing le is sue, Sanc hez arg ues that the tr ial cour t er re d by

deny ing hi s mot ion to s uppress
. In a hear ing on a moti on to suppress ev ide nce, the t ri al jud g e i s t he s ole and6

ex cl usi v e tr ier of factand jud g e of the credi bil ity of the w it ness es as w ell as the w eig ht t o be g iv en to thei r tes ti mony
. See R om er o v . St ate, 8 00 S .W .2 d 53 9, 5 43 (T ex
. C r i m. App.19 90) ; see al

so Tay lor v. Sta te, 916 S.W .2d 6 80, 6 81 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1996, pet.
re f'd). As a g eneral ru le, al most total deferen ce is g iv en to a t ri al cour t' s fin din g s o f his tor ic al facts, es peci all y w hen those findi ng s are base d on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and d e m eanor
. See G uz

m an v . St ate, 9 5 5 S

. W

. 2 d 8 5 , 8 9 ( Te x . C r i m. A p p
. 1 9 9 7 )

. “ The appel lat e c our

ts

. . . shoul d afford the same amount o f defer ence to t ri al cour ts' r uli ng s o n ‘ap pli cat ion of law

to fact q uest ion s,’ al so know n as ‘ mix ed q uest ion s o f law and fact,’ i f the
re sol uti on of thos e ul ti mate q uest ion s t ur ns on an ev alu ati on of credi bil ity and demeanor .” See i d. Mi x ed q uest ion s o f law and fact notfall ing w it hin thi s c ateg or y are r e view ed de
nov o. Id. App ellate inquiry into the i ssue of w het her probab le cause or re a s o n able
sus pic ion ex is ts for a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch inv olv es a m ix ed q uest ion of law and fact. See id. at 87 ; see als o St

ate v . Ar ri aga, 5 S.W .3d 804, 805 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1999, pet. ref 'd). III. Disc ussi on “Stree t e n c o u n ters bet w een citiz ens a nd p olice of f icers are incredibly r ich in div ersi ty . They

rang e from w hol ly

f ri endl y ex chang es of pleas antr ies or mutual ly

us eful infor mati on to hos ti le confro ntati ons of armed men i nv olv ing ar re sts , or i nju ri es, or los s o f life .” Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 13 (1968)

. Fede ra l and state co urts hav e recog niz ed th re e
c a t e go ri e s o f

in t e r a c t io n s b e twe e n p o li c e a n d ci vil ia n s : (1 ) e n c o u n t e rs ; (2 ) i n ve s t ig a t ive detent ion s; and ( 3) a rre sts

. Fl or ida v. R oyer

, 460 U .S. 491, 497- 502 ( 1983) ; Francis v. State , 922 S.W .2d 1 76, 1 78 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1996)

. Each ca teg or y i nv olv es atten dant ri g hts and re spons ibi li ti es. Francis , 922 S.W .2d a t 178

.7

Enco unters a re di st i n g u i s h e d from i nv est ig ati v e det enti ons and ar re sts i n tha t dur ing
an enc ounter , a pol ic e off ic er i s n ot req uired to pos ses s any parti cul ar

l ev el of susp ic ion , a n d t h e c i v i l i a n i s fre e t o d i s r e g a rd t h e c o mm u n i c a t i o n fro m t h e o ffi c e r a n d l e a v e. See United State s v. Mende nha ll , 466 U .S. 544, 553- 54 ( 1980) ; Francis , 922 S.W . 2d at 17 8. Unlike an en coun ter, investigativ e de ten tions a nd a rrests are “seiz ures.” Johns on v . St ate , 912 S. W .2d 227, 235 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1995)

. An inv est ig ati v e detent ion or sto p is a br ief detent ion of a person re asona bly sus pect ed of c ri minal act iv ity to de ter mine his i denti ty or to mai ntai n the st atu s quo m o mentar il y w hil e obt ain ing mor e i nformati on. See Adams v. W illiam s, 407 U. S. 143, 146- 47 ( 1972) ; Ter ry , 392 U .S. at 21 ; Rho des v. State, 945 S.W .2d 115, 117 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1997)

. The Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls has des cr ibe d an inv est ig ati v e det enti on as “ w hen an in div idu al is co nfronted by a l aw enforc ement officer
w ho, un d er

a di spl ay

of law enforc ement au thor ity , t empor ar il y deta ins a pe rs on for the purp oses o f

an investigation.” Johns on , 912 S.W . 2d at 23 5. “C onsi ste nt w it h the pr inc ipl es setforth i n Terry v. Ohio , . . . a p oli ce off ic er ca n s top and brief ly

deta in a perso n for inv estigative purpose s if t h e o f f icer has a reaso nab le
sus pic ion su ppor

ted b y ar ti cul abl e facts thatcr imi nal ac ti v ity may be a foot, ev en i f the of f icer lacks ev iden ce rising to th e level of ‘prob able cause .’” A r r i a g a , 5 S .W .3 d at 805. Unde r Terry , an inv est ig ati v e det enti on i s re asona ble , and therefore cons ti tuti onal , if “ (1 ) the o ff ic er 's ac ti on w as jus ti fied atthe detent ion 's i ncept ion ; and ( 2) the detent ion w as
reaso nab ly relate d in scope to the circumsta nces th at justif ied th e inte rferen ce in the f irst place .” Haa s v

. St ate, 172 S. W .3d 4 2, 50 - 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2005, pet. re f’d)

. For the off ic er 's i nit ial acti on to be jus ti fied under the f irst prong , the State mus t demons trate t hat there “ ex is ted s peci fic, arti cul abl e facts that, tak en to g ether w it h rati onal i nferenc es from8

tho se facts, rea sona bly w arrante d tha t intrusion .” Id. at 51. The off ic er m ust“ hav e a
re asona ble susp ici o n t h a t s ome ac ti v ity out of the ordin ar

y i s o cc ur ri ng or

has oc cur re d,
some s ug g est ion to conne ct the d etaine e wit h the unusu al act iv ity , and so me i ndi cat ion tha t the unu sual act iv ity is relate d to crime .” Id. W hil e a sei z ur e may be reas onabl e at it s i ncept ion , i ts ex ces si v e i ntens ity and sc ope thereafter mayrender

i t unreason abl e. Id. “T h u s, under the sec ond Terry prong , an inv est iga ti ve d e tenti on mus t be temporar y and las t no lon g er

than i s n eces sar

y to ef fectu ate the purp ose of the stop .” Id. An initially -justif ied stop m ay no t be con tinue d pa st the ti me needed to re sol v e the re ason for the sto p in order to eng ag e in a “f ish ing expedition for unrela ted criminal activity .” Id. (quo ti n g Dav is v. Sta te , 947 S.W .2d 2 40, 2 43 (Te x . Crim. App . 199 7)). T hatsaid, the re is no “constitu tiona l stopwatch” on traf f ic stops. Id. a t 51 ( quo ti n g United S tates v. Br igh am , 382 F .3d 5 00, 5 11 ( 5th C ir . 200 4) ). “ An investig ative d ete ntion followi ng a t raf f ic sto p ‘ma y

la st as long as is reaso nab ly nece ssary to eff ect uate the pur pose of t he sto p, inc lud ing the re sol uti on of reason a b le suspi ci on, sup p o rt e d by

ar ti cul abl e facts w it hin the off ic er 's professi onal j udg ment, that emerg es during the sto p.’” Id. at51 -5 2 (quo ti n g Br igh am , 382 F .3d a t 512 ). W e begi n w i t h a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s l e a d i n g u p t o t h e m oment Coh ea first spok e w it h Sanc hez

. Acc ordin g to Coh ea’ s t est imony and the findi ng s of the tr ial cou rt , Sa n ch e z w as dr iv ing 39 mi les per hour i n a 3 5 mi le- per-h our

z one. C ohea deter mined thi s byusing radar and dr iv ing along side the v ehi cl e. In Tex as, an o ff ic er may law fully st op and detai n a p erson for a traff icv iol ati on, i ncl udi ng sp eedi ng and failu re to cont ro l speed

. See T EX
. T RA NS
. C OD E A NN
. § 545. 351 ( Ver non 199 9) ; Chapnick v. State , 25 S. W .3d 8 75, 8 77 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, pet re f’d)

. It is uncon tes ted t hat9

Co h e a wa s ju s t if ie d in in it ia ll y d e t a in in g S a n c h e z. W hil e a detent ion may las t no l ong er than nec ess ar

y to eff ect uate the p ur pose of an i nit ial st op, Tex as cour ts hav e hel d that a law

enfor cementof

ficer ef fecti ng a tra ff icst op i s e n t i t l e d t o c o n d u c t a b r i e f a n d mi n i ma l l y i n t r u s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
. Strauss v. Sta te , 121 S.W .3d 4 86, 4 91 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2003, pet. re f’d)

. For ex ample, the off ic er

may ( 1) require the de taine e to ide ntif y him self ; (2) require the det aine e to produce a v alid driv er's li cens e and proof of insu ra nce; ( 3) ch eck for o uts ta n d in g w ar ra nts ; ( 4) as k a bout the dr iv er 's des ti nati on and pur pose for th e t rip ; a n d ( 5 ) if j ust ified by sa fetyand sec ur it y conc er ns, di re ct the d ri v er to ste p outfrom v ehi cl e. Id. Coh ea w as, therefore, jus ti fied i n bri efly detaini ng Sanchezto condu ct thi s s ort of mini mal inv est ig ati on. See id. The next que sti on, t her efore, is w hether C ohea w as jus ti fied in detai nin g Sanc hez bey ond thi s mi nimal i nv est ig ati on. “I f, dur ing a v ali d traff icst op and det ent ion, th e of

f icer develops reaso n a b le s u spicion th at th e de taine e is engaged in criminal act iv ity , prolon ged or contin ued dete ntion is j ustif ied.” Haa s, 172 S. W .3d a t 52. A n o ffi c e r’ s dis cov ery

o f i n fo r ma t i o n d u r i n g a l a wfu l d e t e n t i o n m a y fo r m t h e b a s i s o f a
re asona ble su spi ci on that another offense is bei ng co mmitt ed, a nd furt her dete nti on may be j ust ified

. Id. “M o re sp e c if ic a ll y, if t h e va li d t ra f

f icst o p e vo lve s in t o a n in ve s t ig a t ive d e t e n t i o n o f o t h e r

c r i mi n a l a c t i v i t y

( s u c h a s t r a n s p o rt i n g i l l e g a l d r u g s ) s o t h a ta c a n i n e s n i ff can ta ke place , reason able suspicion is required to p rolong the d ete ntion .” Id. Sanc heztes ti fied th at he obs er v ed th e foll ow ing ac tio n s, w hic h l ed hi m to a
re asona ble su spi ci on th at S anche zmig ht be transpo rt ing dr ug s. F irst, w hil e Coh ea’ s l ig ht
w a s poi nted at t he w ind shi eld , and before he s poke w it h Sanc hez , he noti ced Sanc hez behav ing ner

v ousl y . C ohea s aw

Sanc hezmaki ng "furtiv e mov ements i n the ca b" and10

re achi ng around, abov e and bel ow hi msel f, "franti cal ly

. . . ex ci tedl y , q uic kl y ." Sanc hezarg ues that thi s C our t shoul d not rely

on the t ri al cour

t’ s fin din g of fact th at he “f rantica lly

or ex citedly search[ed ] for so m e t h in g in the cab of the truck” be cause Co h e a ’s tes ti mony

w as impeac hed atthe hear ing

. Sanc hez ’s co unsel poi nted out t hat Coh ea di d notm enti on th is fact i n hi s o ff ense re por t. Sanc hez , how ev er , i g nor es the sta ndard of r ev iew

—w e m u st gi v e al most total deferen ce to t he tr ial co urt’ s fin din g s o f his tor ic al fact. Guz

m an, 955 S.W .2d a t 89. Acco rd in gly, w e tak e i t as es tabl is hed t hat Sanc hezfrant ic all y

se ar ched the c ab of hi s t ru ck

. Id. Seco nd, C ohea v iew ed Sanc hez throug h the front w ind shi eld ac ti ng i n a w ay C ohea deemed t o be sus pic iou s, inc lud ing z ipp ing cl osed the c urtai n betw een t he s eats i n the ca b and the slee per po rtion of the cab . Coh ea state d tha t San chez’s be havior w as un usua l in his ex per ien ce, and commented that he had sto pped “a lot of t ru ck s.” C ohea t est ified that Sanc hezprov ide d the i mplaus ibl e ex pla nati on th at he w as tr y ing to keep smok e outof the cab— w hen no one w as smok ing

. Third, S anche z ’s hands w er e shak ing cons ide ra bly w hen he hand ed th e doc uments to C ohea. C ohea test ified that, based on hi s e x per ien ce, the shak ing w as more than the usual ner

v ousne ss a dr iv er

demons trates w hen s topped. W hen C ohea i nspec ted Sanc hez ’s paper

w or k, he noti ced it w as not i n order

. Sanc hezhad w ri tten the w ro ng date in his l og book. I t app ear ed th at he had been "off" f o r a c o u p le o f d ay s. C ohea t est ified that at t he moment Sanc hezhanded hi m the paper w or k, he b e ca m e s u spi ci ous that Sanc hezw as eng ag ed i n s ome cr imi nal ac ti v ity . W h e n as ked if he w as “a lready
sus pect ing [t hat S anche z ] w as car ry ing dope,” Coh ea respon ded: “ From w hen he handed
me the dr iv er ’s li cens e, y es, si r. My ind ic ator is w hen a person— as soon as I s ee a handT he d ashboa r d cam er a vi deo was not i ni t i al l y i ncl uded i n t he appel l at e r ecor d; however , w e r equest ed i t and 2 h a v e vie w e d th e vid e o
. S e e A m a d o r v . S ta te , 221 S. W

. 3d 6 66, 673
- 74 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 7) ( r equest i ng phot ogr aph di spl ay ed t o j ur y t o be f or war ded t o cou r t , ev en t hough not i ncl uded i n or i gi nal r ecor d, beca use i t w as t rea t ed by t he co urt an d p art i es as pa rt of t he evi de nc e i n t he ca s e). 11 shakin g, my

threatlev els go up . . . . The re is somet hing suspiciou s.” Four th, Coh ea and Sanc hezw alk ed to the re ar of the tract or-t ra il er , i n frontof the patrol car
. W hen as ked q uest ion s, Sanc hezw oul d notmake e ye co n ta ct w it h C ohea. Al so, des pit e the cool Nov ember w eather and the earl y

hour, Coh ea not ic ed s w eat r unni ng down Sanch ez’s foreh ead and chee ks. Cohea also not iced th at an a rt e ry in Sanch ez’s neck w as v is ibl y

pul sat ing

. Coh ea th en as ked Sanc hezhow much he w as bein g pai d for his tr ip. Sanc hezrepeated t h e q uest ion to Coh ea. Coh ea as ked Sanc hezi f ther e w as anythi ng il leg al in his tr uck , and Sanc hez then took tw o ste ps back from Coh e a . Co h ea testif ied ab ou t h is percept ions of Sanch ez’s non -v erba l cues w hile in the cab an d w hile b e h in d t h e t ra c t o r- t ra il e r, wh ic h i s s u p p o rt e d b y t h e d a s h b o a rd ca m e ra vid e o
. Fi n a ll y, 2 Cohe a test if ied th at Hwy 77 is a known corri dor for smu gg ling drugs and illegal aliens. San ch e z a rg ues th at ne rv ousn ess alon e is not en ough to satisf y the “reaso nab le suspicion ” standa rd. W e agree. Ho w ever, extreme nervousness, coup led w ith imp lausible infor mati on from t he det ain ee, c an rais e a reason abl e s uspi ci on. Haa s , 172 S.W .3d a t 54. Addi ti onal ly , w hil e an off ic er ’s kn ow led g e tha t c ri minal ac ti v ity i s fr eq uent in the a re a i s n ot, by i tse lf, eno ug h to suppo rta reason abl e su sp ici o n , w e mustco nsi der the total ity

of the ci rc umstan ces
. See Go o d w in v. State , 799 S.W .2d 7 19, 7 27 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) (h old ing of

ficer 's "obser

v ati ons of sus pic iou s acti v ity bythe occ upants of

the car before and af ter the stop, comb ined w ith his knowledge of the are a an d the f requency of burglaries in the neighbo rhoo d, an d the reaso nab le inferen ces to be drawn f rom th e ap pellan t's and hisC ohea’ s t est i m ony t hat t he st r et ch of H i ghway 77 bet ween Br ownsv i l l e an d C or pus C hr i st i i s a m aj or cor r i dor 3 f or i l l egal act i v i t y i s a t enuou s f act or i n est abl i shi ng r easona bl e susp i ci on. Cour t s t hat hav e ut i l i z ed l ocat i on as a f act or , by dee m i ng t he l ocat i on a s a “ hi gh cr i m e ar ea, ” have t y pi cal l y poi nt ed t o a nei ghbor hood or a r oad wi t h a m or e l i m i t ed g eogr aphi c scope
. 12 compani ons' behav ior , j ust ified a br ief det enti on of the occ upa n ts o f the car for fur ther inv est ig ati on")

. An officer ’s kn ow led g e that th e area i n w hic h a d efendant i s a ppr ehended is a “ hig h c ri me area” i s a factor that may be tak en i nto a cc ount alo ng w it h the restof the ci rc umstan ces
. S e e Un ite d S ta te s v . A r v i zu , 534 U .S. 266, 277 ( 2002) ( hol din g thatunder total it y of c ircums tanc es, re asona ble sus pic ion ex is ted, and cons ide ri ng bord e r pa trol agent's kno w ledge tha t road traveled b y d ef end antw as com mo nly used bydrug smuggl ers to av oid border

patrol) ; Goo dw

in , 799 S.W .2d a t 727 ; Valenci a v. St ate , 820 S.W .2d 3 97, 400 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st] 1991, pet. re f'd) (c onsi der ing fact t hat d efendant w as "apprehended in a resi denti al nei g hbor hood t hat w as know n for its v er y hi g h c ri me and i ts hig h narcot ic s t ra ff ic ki ng "); Or tega v. State , No. 14- 97- 01084- CR , 1999 W L 717636, at *2 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] Sept . 16, 1999, pet. ref'd) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) (h old ing off ic er 's kn ow led g e tha t hot el w her e defendant w as a p p re h e n d e d w as "a not or iou s loc ati on for il leg al nar cot ic s a cti v it y "). W e do n ot ho ld tod ay tha t extreme ne rv ousn ess an d kno w ledge tha t the area is a high crime area , w ithou t mo re, is enou gh to supp ort a reaso nab le suspicion . But in this 3
ca se , t her e i s more. Coh ea al so obser v ed th at S anche zex hib it ed er ra ti c b ehav ior and prov ide d an impl ausi ble st or y about w hy

he z ipp ed th e c urtai n. Al l thes e facts , c onsi dered tog ether , s uppor

ted Cohea ’s reaso nabl e suspi ci on to co nti nue hi s i nv est ig ati v e det enti on under a ne w j ust ific ati on. Fur ther more, Coh ea’ s detent ion of Sanc hez for thi rty -s ev en m in utes after Coh ea compl eted his ini ti al inv est ig ati on of t he traff icv iol ati on, i n order to w aitfor a dr ug dog to13

v er ify thatno d ru g s w er e cont ain ed in the tr uck ’s cabi n, w as not u nr eason abl e. An officer
ma y tem pora rily

deta in an au tom obile a f te r a r o u t in e traf

f ic stop if

he ha s a reason able
sus pic ion thati t c ontai ns il leg al dr ug s, in order to all ow an olfact or

y inspec ti on bya t ra ine d pol ic e dog

. Est

ra da v . St ate , 30 S.W .3d 5 9 9 , 6 03 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000, pet. ref’d) (ci ti n g C r

o c k e tt v. State , 803 S.W .2d 3 08, 3 10- 11 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) ). I n Uni ted States v. Shar

pe , the Su p re m e C o u rt declined to esta blish a pe r se rule that a sp ecif ic len g th of ti me for a Terry st op i s t oo l ong
. 470 U .S. 675, 687- 88 ( 1985) ; see Ko th e v. State, 152 S.W .3d 54, 64 -65 ( T ex. Crim. App . 200 4). Moreover, the length of the sto p is
n o tt h e e n d o f

t h e in qu iry: W hil e i t i s c lea r that “th e b re vity of the i nv asi on of the ind iv idu al' s F our th Amendment int er est s i s a n i mport ant fact or i n det er mini ng w hether the sei z ur e is so mini mall y int ru si v e as to be j ust ifiab le on reason abl e s uspi ci on,” w e hav e emphas iz ed th e need to c onsi der the law enforc ement pu rp oses to be s er v ed by the sto p as w ell as the ti me r e a so n a b ly need ed to effect uate tho se pu rpose s. Kothe , 152 S.W . 3d at 64 -6 5 ( ci tati ons omit ted)

. "The propr iet y o f the durati on of an inv est ig ati v e det enti on is deter mined by as ses si ng w hether

an o ff ic er

di li g entl y

pursued a
means of inv est ig ati on th at w as li kel y to dis pel or co nfir m hi s s uspi ci on q uic kl y ." Josey v. State , 981 S.W .2d 831 , 840 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 8, pe t. ref 'd). In t he presentca se, the tr ial co urt found t hat “ [t] aken as a w hol e, [Co h ea] h ad suffici ent i nformati on, w hic h bas ed on his ex per ien ce, and all surroundi ng ci rc umstan ces jus ti fied a temporar

y deta ini ng of [Sanc hez ] w hil e a K -9 uni t ar ri v ed.” O nce Coh ea dev elo ped a re asona ble suspi ci on, he immediat ely call ed for

the K- 9 uni t. C ohea di d not
unr eason abl y

del ay i n c all ing for

the K- 9 unit, and the K-9 unit w as req uired to trav el from Refug io. Ba sed on th e ev ide nce cont ain ed in the re cord, the thi rty -s ev en minut es from the tim e C o h e a f ini shed his i nv est ig ati on of the traff icv iol ati on w as not u nr eason abl e. Id.14

(9 0- minut e det e n ti o n t o wa itfor d ru g dog reason abl e) ; see a lso Strau ss , 121 S.W .3d a t 492 (75-minu te deten tion reasona ble w hen of f icer imm edia tely called fo r K-9 un it, w hich
w as comi ng from an adj oin ing co unty ). Onc e the train ed pol ic e dog al erted poli ce that the cab maycontai n drug s, Coh ea had probabl e caus e to search the cab of t he tr uck

. “I t is w ell -s ettl ed that a trai ned
nar cot ic s d og 's pos it iv e al ert for dr ug s i s s uff ic ien t t o establ is h probabl e c ause for an
a rr e st.” $217,59 0.00 in U. S. C ur re ncy v. Sta te , 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 3 ( Te x . A p p
. – C o rp us Ch ris ti 2 0 0 1 , no pe t. ) (ci ti n g De Jes us v. State, 917 S.W .2d 4 58, 4 61 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 1996, pet. ref’d) ; Bunts v. Sta te, 881 S.W

. 2 d 4 4 7 , 450 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 1994, pet. re f'd); W

als h v . St ate, 743 S.W .2d 6 87, 6 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–Hou sto n [1s t D is t.] 1987, pet. re f'd))

. Beca use Coh ea art icu la ted fact s s uppor ti ng hi s reason abl e s uspi ci on of i ll eg al activity , the contin ued d ete ntion was not un reaso nab le. Th e sub sequen t search a nd a rrest
w as suppo rt ed by probabl e caus e. Therefor e, the tr ial cour t did not err in de n ying app ellant 's mot ion to supp ress. W e overrule Sanch ez’s sole issue on ap pea l. IV. Conclusion Hav ing ov er ru led appel lan t' s s ole i ss ue on appeal , w e aff ir m.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.