### NUM BER 13-09- 0020 0-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 D I N B U R G
TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v. EVA EU SEB IA

C A M POS, A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 156th Dist ri ct Court of

Be e C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I 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 C hie f J us tice Vald ez The Stat e appea ls a tr ial court ’s or der g ra nti ng a mot ion to suppress thatw as filed by appel lee , Ev a Eus ebi a C ampos. See T EX
. C O D E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 44.01( a) (5 ) (V e rn o n Su p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (p ro vid i n g t h a t t h e St a te is e n ti tl e d to ap p e a l a n ord e r gra n ti n g a mo tion to supp ress evi den ce). I n a s in gl e issue, the State conte nds th at th e trial court erred in granting Ev a’s mo t io n be cause the trial court “f ailed to recogniz e tw o v alid
ex c ep ti on s t o th e w ar r an t r eq ui r em en t of t he F ou rth A me nd me nt .” W e affi r m.W e n o te th a t n e ith e r M e a k in s n o r th e S ta te s u p p lie d t h e t r ia l c o u r t w ith a c ita tio n to th e s p e c if ic 1 sect i on o ft he t r anspor t at i on co de t hat was al l egedl y v i ol at ed. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On Jan uary 22, 200 9, Ev a w as indicte d for posse ssion of more than four, bu t less than tw o hundr ed, g ra ms of c ocai ne, w hic h pol ic e dis cov er ed w it h the hel p of a ca n ine dur ing a t ra ff icst op. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481 .11 5(d) (Vernon 200 3). Eva f il ed a w ritten m otion to supp ress all ev iden ce seized by law enf orcem ent of

f icers dur ing an a rreston N ov ember 14, 2008. Ev a all eg ed that the e v ide nce w as sei z ed from her veh ic le wi t h out a w arrant, conse nt, o r probab le cause , and that use of the evidence
v iol ated her

federal and sta te c onst it uti onal r ig hts

. See gen erally , U .S. C ON ST
. amend. I V, V, X IV. The St ate d id not respon d i n w ri ti ng to Ev a’s moti on. Rob ert M eaki ns, w ho w as a pat ro l off ic er and cani ne handler

w it h the Bee Cou nty Sher iff’s D epar

tment at t he ti me of

the tr aff icstop, w as the sol e w it ness at the s uppr ess ion hear ing

. On di re ct ex aminat ion by the Stat e, M eakins tes ti fied th at he obs er v ed an
unr est ra ine d c hil d in th e b a ck of a v an, a nd he sto pped t he v an bec ause dr iv ing w it h an
unr est ra ine d c hil d i s a tr anspo rt ati on c ode v iol ati on. See T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 545.4 1 2 , 5 4 5

. 4 1 3 ( V e r n o n S u p p
. 2 0 0 8 )

. M e a k i n s a p p r o a c h e d t h e d r i v e r , M a n uel 1 Campos , and as ked for hi s d ri v er ’s l ic ense. M anuel tol d M eaki ns that he di d nothav e a dr iv er ’s l ic ens e
. Me aki ns then ask ed for cons ent t o s ear ch the v an. Acc or din g to Me aki ns’ s t est imony , Ma nuel ag re ed, but he to ld Me aki ns that Ev a ow ned t he v an and she
w ould have to conse nt. Eva denie d con sent to search the van. Me a k in s imm edia tely
re tr iev ed hi s c ani ne par tner , w ho s ear ched th e peri meter of the v an and ale rt ed to the poss ibl e pr esenc e of dr ug s. The K- 9 the n s ear ched the ins ide of t he v an and found t hr ee bundl es of coca ine hi dden i nsi de an empty fountain dr ink cu p. Me aki ns als o s ear ched Manu el and Ev a be cause “w e ha d received informa tion th at [Eva is] known to carry [drugs]3

on her person and i n the cl othi ng of the c hil dr en or i n the ca r seat s.” On c ro ss -e x aminat ion by Ev a’s defense couns el, M eakins testi fied th at E v a w as “p re tty w ell -k now n,” and that he knew the v an belong ed to Ev a. Me aki ns w as then ask ed: Def ense Counse l: So rea lly w hat y ou were doing w as followi ng the v ehicle w aiting for th e m to ma ke som e kind of traf f ic error, w asn’ t i t? Meakins: Yes. Defense C ounse l: It’s a p re tex t stop. Notsay ing there is any thi ng w ro ng

w it h i t. Meakins: T he sto p w as ma de o n a traf f ic v iolation , y es. Defense C ounse l: I und er sta nd y ou w ait ed unti l y ou g ot a tr aff icv iol ati on,

but y ou w er e foll owing h e r in hopes there w oul d be a tr aff icv iol ati on. Me aki ns: That’s co rrect

. Upo n furt her

cross ex aminat ion , M eaki ns test ified that, af ter M anuel co uld not pr oduce a dr iv er ’s l ic ense, he d etai ned t he v an f or possi ble posses si on of nar cot ic s b ecaus e M anuel app eare d ne rv ous. Af ter hea ring Meakins’s test imo ny, Ev a’s coun sel argued th at there w as no proba ble
caus e to further

deta in and “ sni ff

se ar ch” the van

. The Stat e di d notpr esentany ar g uments to the t ri al cour t. The tr ial co urt t ook th e m a tter u nder adv is ement an d
re q uest ed br iefin g
. Nei ther si de prov ide d the r eq uest ed br iefin g
. The tri al cour t t hen g ra nted Ev a’s moti on to su ppr ess and is sued the fol low ing findi ng s o f f act :

The Off ic er

had suffici ent reason to stop t h e va n as he ob ser v ed a tr aff icv iol ati on ( unr est ra ine d c hil d pas seng er ). The O f f ice r re cei v ed informa tion a bou t ow nersh ip of the v an a nd th e Def end ant ’s husba nd[ ‘]s lack of a dr iv er ’s li cens e the re by auth or iz ing ti ck eti ng D efendant for v iol ati ng the Tex as tr aff iccode f or

allo w ing an u n- li cens ed dr iv er [t o] op er ate h er

v ehi cl e. The Off ic er

di d not hav e probabl e cause to sear ch the v an pri or to the K- 9 s w eep. The Officer di d nothav e the D efendant’ s cons ent t o s ear ch the4

ve h ic le

. T h e O f

f ic e r d id n o tp o s s e s s s u f f ic ie n ta rt ic u la b le f a c t [ s ] t o ju s t ify a cont inue d de ten tion o f

the Def end ant ’s v ehicle a f ter he co nclud ed h is traf f ic inv est ig ati on. The Off ic er i nter ru pted the t ra ff icst op to per form a K -9 sw eep. The Defendantw as detai ned at the sc ene w hil e the K-9 w as bro ug ht ou t and sw ept the Def end ant ’s v an. T he Of f icer never i ndica ted he inte nde d to arrest the D efendant or

her hus band for

the traff icoff enses he n oted. There w as li ttl e or

no delay

betw een t he ti me the Off ic er had conc lud ed hi s t ra ff ici nv est ig ati on and beg an th e “ re al” reason for t he s top, a dr ug searc h. Ev en a mini mal detent ion or seiz ur e w hic h i s n ot s uppor ted w it h s uff ic ien t facts to jus ti fy iti s u nr eason abl e. This appeal ens ued. II. D I S CUS S I ON In i ts sol e i ss ue, t he St ate c ontends thatthe tr ial courterr ed in granti ng Ev a’s moti on becau se the t ri al cour

t “ faile d to re cog niz e tw o v ali d ex cept ion s t o the w ar ra nt r eq uirement of the F our

th A mendment.” W hen the def endant show s that a searc h or sei z ur e oc cur re d
w it hout a w ar ra nt, as in th is cas e, t he burden s hifts to the S tate to prov e the
re asona ble ness of the wa rra n tless se ar ch or se iz ur e. Tor

re s v . St ate , 182 S.W .3d 8 99, 902 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2005)

. A rev ie w o f

t h e p roced ural history of th is case rev eals th at th e Sta te f ell w oef ully shor t of ar ti cul ati ng a g ro und for re asona ble ness of the c onti nued de tenti on, muc h l ess the “tw o v ali d ex cept ion s” to the s ear ch- w ar ra nt r eq uire m e n t th a t are ur g ed on appeal

. Not onl y di d the Sta te fail to file a w ri tten re spons e to Ev a’s moti on, b ut, at t he s uppr ess ion hear ing , i t di d notpr esentany g ro und t o deny

Ev a’s m oti on. Addi ti onal ly , the State di d not f ile the sup plem ent al brief ing that the trial court requested

. T he court of criminal ap pea ls has hel d that or din ar

y noti ons of procedu ra l default appl y eq ual ly to the d efendant and the Stat e, an d tha t t he bas icappel lat e pr inc ipl e tha t poi nts not ar g ued attr ial ar e deemed
w aiv ed appl ies to the S tate w hen i t i s th e a ppel lan t. State v . Mer cado , 972 S.W .2d 7 5, 77-7 8 (Te x . Crim. App .19 98).5

The Stat e’s prese ntati on of a “ new ” is sue on appe al is procedu ra ll y si mil ar to State
v. Huddle sto n , 164 S.W .3d 711, 713 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2005, no p et.)

. In Huddle sto n , t he Stat e appea led a t ri al cour t’ s s uppr ess ion of

ev ide nce of dr unk dr iv ing on t he bas is thatthe ini ti al tr aff ic s to p wa s in vali d. Id

. After the t ri al cour t g ra nted the d efendant’ s mot ion to suppress , t he St ate fil ed a moti on for re hear ing urg ing al ter nati v e the or ies to jus ti fy the tr aff icst op, but no hear ing on the Stat e’s moti on w as hel d. Id . at716. The t ri al cour t l ater
ma de a docke t shee t ent ry stating that its prev ious ruling g rantin g the mot ion to supp ress “stand s.” Id . On app eal, th e Sta te reurged its “alterna tiv e the ories.” Id . Th e Aust in Court of Appeal s h eld thatthe alt er nati v e the or ies w er e w aiv ed under the d oct ri ne of pr ocedu ra l default. Id

. A c c o rd in gl y, u n d e r th e ru le s o f p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt e s t a b l i s h e d b y Me rc ado and
e la b o ra t e d b y Huddle sto n , w e hold that the State w aiv ed its sole is sue by fail ing to pr esent it—or anythi ng —to the tr ial co urt. See Mer cado , 972 S.W .2d a t 77- 78; Huddle sto n , 164 S.W .3d a t 716

. III . C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s s uppr ess ion or der i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Do NotPubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 27t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.