## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . P D - 0936- 07, P D - 0937- 07

STA TE O F T EX A S

v . C A N D E L A R I O G A R C I A - C A N T U , A ppel l ee ON APP ELLEE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE NI NTH CO URT O F AP PEALS M ON TGO M ERY CO UNTY
K ELL ER , P. J. , f

i l e d a di s s e nt i ng o pi ni on i n w hi c h K EASLE R and H ERVEY , J J ., j oi ne d.

T o u n d er s t an d

t h i s ca s e, we m u s tfi rs tu n d er s t an d t h e n at u re o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’s ru l i n g. Appellee ’s complaint at trial wa s that Offic er O kland’s appr oach of the vehicle constituted a “stop” wi tho ut r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

in v iol a tio n o f t

he F ou rt h A me ndme nt: At this point, Your Honor – well, we’ re objecting to the stop, a nd the a p p roaching vehicle, at least the objec tion made in this case. Tha t ’s al l we nee d to argue about here today , if they

had a valid rea son for stopping and makingtheir investig ation and sear ch that they conducte d. Any thing that ha

ppened a fterw ards is sort of irr eleva nt to our argument here

. Whe n th e State so ug ht t o in tr od uc e the vid e o o f t

he e nc ounte r, a

pp e lle e re ite rate d the natur e of hisGA RCIA-C ANTU DISSENT – 2

Se e Pe op le v . Ca sc io , 9 32 P.2 d 1 38 1 , 13 88 (C olo . 1 99 7) (u se of sp otl ig ht a

nd fl a sh lig hts 1 we re pr a c tic a l ne c e ssi ty

fo r e nc ounte r t

hat to ok plac e in t

he da rk and a pp e llate c ourt

de c lin e d to attribute any

signific ance to their use). The office r’s emer g ency lights had not been a ctivated. The numerous ca ses cited by

the Court that involved the use of “ blue fla s h er s ” or police emer g ency lights, see Court ’s op . at 15 n. 43 , a re sim ply ir re le va nt t o th e c a se be fo re us . c omp la int a s r e la tin g on ly

to th e very beginnin g : “ No ob je c tio n, jus t th a t a ll w e ne e d is the fi rs t fr a me , or – y e ah, the fi rs t f ra me to s ho w w he re the ve hic le wa s p ark e d, and Ihave no ob

je c tio n to that.” In sustaining a

later obje ction at the h ea ri n g, t he trial c ourt confir med that the suppre ssion issue was limited to the initi al contac t betwee n Offic er O kland and a ppellee: [DEFENSE COUNSEL ]: Objection, y our honor, to any testimony

that followed the sto p. What we ’r e qu e sti on ing is the sto p, and no t any thi ng that ha

pp e ne d a ft e rw ard s. [THE COURT] : Yeah, that will be sustained. Th e Court

re c ite s te n c ir c ums tanc e s th a t it be lie ve s supp or t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g , b ut o nly one of those c ircumstance s comes close to supporting a fi n d i n g t hat the initial contact be tween Of fi c e r O kla nd and a pp e lle e c on sti tut e d the on se t of a d e te nti on fo r F ourt h A me ndme nt p ur

po se s. Offic er O kland’s subjec tive decision to investigate, the time of day (ver y ear ly morning ), the use of a spotlight a

nd a flashlight whil e it was da rk outside, and askingindividuals what they wer e doing 1 in a par ticular location do not support the ex istence of a detention. As any private c itiz en may

do,

a po lic e of

fi c e r m ay a pp ro a c h a

n in div idu a l a t an y tim e of the da y and a sk qu e sti on s. Whil e

su bs e qu e nt e ve nts c an tu

rn a c on se ns ua l e nc ounte r int o a de te nti on , a pp e lle e sp e c if

ic a lly lim ite d h is complaint to the beg inning of the enc ounter, so the offic er’ s subsequent re quests for identific ation (w hic h co uld po ssi bly have be e n sup po rt e d by re a so na ble su sp ic ion ari sin g a ft e r t he ini tia l c on ta c t) do not enter into the a

naly sis. And while the C ourt rec ites appellee ’s s ubjective perce ption that he was not fr ee to le ave, the Court c oncede s that this subjec tive perc eption “is not pa rticularly rele vant.”GA RCIA-C ANTU DISSENT – 3

Court’s op. at 14. 2 Un ite d S

tates v . S um me rs , 268 F.3d 683, 687 ( 9 Cir. 2001). 3 t h The Court cla ims that the vide o rec ording supports an implicit finding that Offic er O kland

us e d “ an a

uth or ita tiv e, com mandin g vo ic e and de me ano r t

hat br oo ke d n o d isa g re e me nt i nto his officia l investigation.” T h e first thi rty seconds of

the video is silent, and in the re mainder of the 2 video Off icer Okland’s voice sounds simpl y li k e s o me one eng ag ed in ca sual conve rsation. I disag ree with the Court’s conclusion that the video suppor ts a finding that the office r used a n “author itative,

comman d in g v o ic e an d d e me an o r , ” an d w it h o u t s o me s u

p p o rt in th e r e c o r d , I d o n o t th ink s uch a finding can be implied. What r emains is the fourth “implicit f inding” rec ited by the Court: that Of fice r Okland ha d “boxed in” appellee ’s par

ked truc k. This fac tor would be sig nificant if ther e had be en any evidenc e that appellee wanted to dr ive awa y , but the re w as not. Appellee was pa rked w hen Of

fice r Okland approa ched him and w as wa iting patiently for so m eo ne in the house ne arby . Moreove r, whe n Of fi c e r O kla

nd a pp ro a c hed , a

pp e lle e vo lun tari ly

e xite d h is v e hic le . U nd e r t ho se c ir c ums tanc e s, appellee was e ssentially

a pede strian, and he was “not clear ly stopped in any

sense, ab ini tio except of his own volition.” The c ases c ited by the Court for the pr oposition t hat “boxing in” a suspect’s 3

car constitutes a detention are all distinguishable for one rea son or another , and in any event, they

ar e n o tb i n d i n g a

u t h o r i t y. Withthe se c omm e nts , I

re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt. Filed: May

7, 2008 Pub lis h