### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 806 -CV

In the Matte r of O. G. J.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 3,91 3 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N O.G.J. appeals from a

juvenile cour

t judgm en t o f d elinquency placinghim on probation for

the offe nse of e vading detention. See T e x . P e n . C o d e A n n . § 3 8
. 0 4 ( W e s t2 0 0 3 )
. In a si ng le i ssue, O.G.J. complains that the evidence is factua lly and leg ally

insufficient to support the
c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat th e a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t hi m w e re tr ue . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.
F AC TS Th e arr e sti ng of

fi c e rs te sti fi e d that the y fi rs t sa w O. G. J. at

a pp ro xima te ly

2:3 0 a .m. on September 15, 2005. Senior Police Offic er Kenneth Casaday of t he Austi n Police Depa rtment was dispatche d to the Oak Creek Apartments in response to an anony mous citiz en’s 911 c all about
su sp e c te d d

ru g a c tiv ity

in t he la un dry roo m a t th e a

pa rtme nt c omp le x. Th e c omp le x is lo c a te d in
a hig h- c ri me are a kn ow n fo r na rc oti c s tr a ff

ic kin g . Ca sa da

y arr ive d at th e c omp le x at the same tim e as anothe r uniforme d office r who a rrive d i n a mar

ked patr ol unit. C asada

y was dre ssed in BD U (battle dre ss uniform) pants and a tactica l vest, which wa s black with the wor d “Police” written on2

the front and back i n white letters a nd with the city

logo a nd “Austin Police” on e ach sle eve. T he oth e r o ff ic e r w a s d

re sse d in a po lic e un if

or m. The laundr

y room was e mpty

when the of

fice rs a rr i v ed , b ut they

encounte red two individuals nearby . Casaday observe d O.G.J., a y outh, and another male individual who C asada y
rec og nized because Casaday had pre viously

arr ested him for “ handguns and drug s.” Casada y had “dea lt with [t he individual] so many times, I knew it was him.” The uniformed of fice r appr oache d O
. G
. J. an d

i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f a s a p o l i c e o f f i c e r . A s t h e o f

f i c e r s a p p r o a c h e d , t h e t w o ind ivi du a ls looked a t th e o f

f ic e r s an d s ta

rte d to w a lk aw ay . T h e o f f ic e r s a s k e d th e m to s to p . A s the two individuals “ took of

f running to the back of

the complex,” the offic ers y elled “Stop, police—stop, police.” T he individuals continued to r un. The office rs chase d them along the fe nce line of the g ated apar tment complex, continui ng to observe the m and y elling “ Stop, poli ce.”

A third offic er, K elly

Moore, wa s monitor i n g his police radio whe n he hea rd that office rs had be en dispatche d to the apar tment complex for an investig ation of poss ible drug -dea ling activity
. Offic er Moore t estified that he was familiar with the area beca use it was known to him as
an are a for narc otics traff icking and “it’s not unc ommon f or office rs to be in f

oot pur suits o n ce the y ’v e re sp on de d into that loc a tio n. ” Mo or e he a de d in the dir e c tio n o f t

he c omp le x, mon ito ri nghis radio. As he turned the corne r to a pproac h the laundry room, he saw the office rs runningand hea rd
on the ra dio that th e of

fi c e rs we re in a

“ fo ot p ur su it. ” He saw t he tw o in di vid

ua ls r unnin g so uth along the west e nd of the c om p l ex , an d h e “pa rallele d that in the vehicle [he] was driving .” He ob se rv e d O .G .J. r

un be tw e e n “ tw o bu ild ing s ba c k up tow ard s th e pa rk inglot that I wa s d ri vin g in and then [he] beg an running para llel to my moving vehicle.” Moore r olled his window down and3

y elled at O.G .J ., “He y , police, st op.” Moore testified that he then “also said something to the ef fec t
o f ‘ y o um i gh tas we l l s t o p , ’” b ec au s e “ I ’v e go ty o u . ” O
. G. J
. co n t i nu edru n n i n g.

Mo or e e xite d h is v e hicl e and c ha se d O .G .J. O .G .J. c on tin ue d r unnin g , tr yingto “fa ke” Moor e out and avoid appre hensi o n . Moore suc cee ded in g etting O .G.J . to comply with a command to g et on the ground when he warned O.G.J
. he was g oing to use a taser . Moore testified that he c le arl y ide nti fi e d him se lf to O. G. J. as a po lic e of fi c e r a nd he wa s a lso we ari ngB DUpa nts and a ta ctical ve st showing “ Police” in white letter s on his chest are a.

F ind ingthe a lle g a tio n th a t O .G .J. e va de d d e te nti on tr ue , th e court

summa ri zed its fa c tua l f ind ing s: [I ]n t erms of the totality

of the c ircumstance s—first that they rec eived th e a

n ony mous tip about individuals usi ng drug s or selli ng drug s in the are a. The y g et there , it’s 2:30 in the morning , and they

find an indi vidual that is known t o one officer to have ha d drug s and weapons, which can be, as to that per son, a re ason to approa ch and inquire , wh ic h a n o ff ic e r h a s th e ri g ht t o d o. An d th e n th e c ha se be g ins
. I n terms of our Re spondent, the Court is lo o king at—he is a juvenile. He a pp e are d you thf

ul. Cur fe w vio latio n at 2:3 0 a .m. in t he mor nin g . I f h e wa s a

n a du lt, he wo uld no t ha ve a c ur fe w v iol a tio n. I f h e wa s— that w ou ld be a

no n- c ri min a l a c t, beca use it’s not ag ainst the law for adults to be out at 2: 30 in the m orning
. But ther e i s a c u rf ew v i o l at i o nfo r R es p o n d en tt o b e o u tat 2 : 3 0 i nt h e m o rn i n g. And with that—that g ave the rea sonable suspicion and the proba ble ca use for the offic ers to appr oach, de tain or lawf ully arr est the Respondent. And he took off running . And he f

urther e vaded Office r Moore. There was an actua l fac e-to-f ace and an ac tual encounte r of him trying to mane uver a nd out maneuver

Offic er Moor e. So based upon the totality of the circ umstances, I find that the office rs had a re a so na ble su sp ic ion

ba se d o n th e Re sp on de nt, ba se d o n th e c ur fe w v iol atio n, to detain him and/or to lawf ully arr est him for that violation.4 AN AL YSI S O.G.J. contends that t h e evidence is insufficient to support an a djudication of delinquency

for the of fense of eva ding a

rre st. He urg es that the e vidence is insufficient to show that the police we re attempting lawf ully to detain him and t here was no re ason to detain him when he ran. This contention is not supported by the re cord.
Stan dard of Revie w

Adjudications o f d el i n q u ency are based on the criminal standar d of proof , and we revie w the suff

iciency of the e vidence as we would in a cr iminal case. See T ex . Fa m . Code Ann. § 5 4
. 0 3 ( f ) ( W e s tS u

p p . 2 0 0 6) ; In r e C .M.G. , 180 S.W .3d 836, 838 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pe t. d e nie d) . E vid e nc e is n ot l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt i f, wh e n v ie wi ngthe e vi den ce in a lig ht m os t favor a b le to th e v e r d ic t, n o r a ti o n a l t r ie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th e e s s e n ti a l e le me n ts o f the offe nse beyond a reas o n able doubt. J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 15 -1 6 ( 19 79 ); se e als o J oh ns on v . S

tate , 871 S.W .2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Our r e vie w o f t

he fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y of the evi dence is w ith ou t th e lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to t he ve rd ic t, a

nd we de te rm ine wh e the r t he e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g the verd ict is so obviously weak as to undermine our confide nce in the jur

y ’s d et er m i n ation, or the proof of g uilt, although ade quate if taken alone , is gr eatly outweig hed by

contra ry proof. W

ats on v . S tate , No. PD-469-05, 2006 Te x . Crim. App. L EXI S 2040, at *39 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . Oc t
. 18, 2006) (holding evidenc e is fac tually insufficient only when reviewing court objectively conclude s that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidence contradicts the fact finde r’s ve rdict). Unde r either standard, our

role is that of a

ppellate r eview, a

nd the fac t f

inder is the sole judge of the we ight a nd5

cre dibilit y of a witness’s testimony
. W esb ro ok v . S tate , 29 S.W .3d 103, 111-12 (Tex . Crim. App. 2000). The tr ier of f

act is fr ee to a cce pt or reject any or all of a

witness’s testimony
. Adelman v

. Sta te , 828 S.W .2d 418, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Be cause O.G.J. failed to file a motion for new trial challeng ing the fa ctual suff iciency of the evidenc e, the State ur g es that he f ailed to pre serve this ground. See I n re M.R. , 858 S.W .2d 365, 366 (Tex. 1993). I n light of the split by the cour ts of appea ls on whether a m otion for new trial is require d, and in the intere st of justice, we w i l l ad d re s s the issue. Compare In re D .J.H. , 186 S
. W
. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (T ex . Ap p . — F o r t W o r t h 2 0 0 6 , p et
. fi l ed ) ( ci t i n g In re J .B.M. , 157 S.W .3d 823, 827-28 (Te x . App.—For

t Worth 2005, no pet.) ( en banc )) ( motion for new tria l nece ssary to preser ve fac tual sufficie ncy

g round), with In re J.L.H. , 58 S.W .3d 242, 245-46 (Te x . App.—El Paso 20 01,
no pet.) (m ot io n fo r n e w tri a l r a isi ngfa c tua l su ff ic ie nc y c ha lle ng e is n ot r e qu ir e d) ; se e als o In re E.U .M. , 108 S.W .3d 368, 371-72 (Tex
. App.—B eaumont 2003, no pet.) (discussion of issue,
c on clud ingmot ion

fo r n e w tri a l r e qu ir e d w ithjur y fi nd ing s) ; In re F.F.G

. , No. 03-05-00854- CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 10306, at *4-5 (Te x . App.—Austin Nov. 29, 2006, no pet. h.) ( motion for new tria l only

require d to preser

ve complaints about the f actua l sufficienc y

of the e vidence supporting jur

y finding s). Evidence Sufficie ncy

A p e rs on c omm its the of

fe ns e of e va din g arre st o r d e te nti on if he int e nti on a lly fl e e s f ro m a pe rs on wh om he kn ow s is a pe a c e of fi c e r a tte mpt ing lawf ull y to a rr e st o r d e ta in h im. Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 3 8. 04 (a ); Ha zk e ll v . S tate , 616 S.W .2d 204, 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Th e of fe ns e of e va din g de te nti on

c on sis ts o f t

he fo llo wi ng e le me nts : ( 1) a pe rs on (2 ) i nte nti on a lly6

fl e e s (3 ) fr om a pe a c e of

fi c e r (4 ) w ithkn ow le dg e he is a pe a c e of fi c e r ( 5) wh o is a tte mpt ingto d e ta in the de fe nd ant a

nd (6 ) the a tte mpt e d de te nti on is lawf ul. Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 3 8. 04 (a ); se e als o J ac k so n v . S tate , 71 8 S.W. 2d 72 4, 72 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Ro dr igu e z v. S tate , 578 S.W .2d 419, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). O.G.J. does not dispute the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence to support the first five e lements of the of fense
. Be cause the attempted de tention was base d on an anon y mo u s tip a n d th e o f fice rs wer e
mere ly attem p t i n g t o en g ag e in an “ encounte r” w ith O.G.J ., he conte nds that there w as no lawf ul
reas o n t o detain him. Thus, O.G.J. challeng es only the final e lement—whethe r the attempted de te nti on wa s la wf ul. Courts have reco gn i z ed three distinct categ ories of inter actions betwe en police office rs and c itiz ens: enc ounters, investig ative dete ntions, and arr ests. State v. Pe rez , 85 S.W .3d 817, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). An en co unter ne eds no justification, a de tention require s
rea sonable suspicion, and an arr est must be supported by probable cause . Johnson , 912 S.W .2d at 235. Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations, a nd a police of

fice r may approa ch an individual on the stree t or in a public place and ask questions of him. Perez , 85 S.W .3d at 819;
se e als o Hiib e l v. S

ix th J ud ic ial Di st. Cou rt , 5 42 U. S. 1 77 , 1 85 (2 00 4) ; Adams v. W illiams , 4 07 U. S. 14 3, 14 6 ( 19 72 ) ( “ A b ri e f s top of a su sp ic iou s in div idu a l, i n o rd e r t o d ete rm in e his ide nti ty or to
ma int a in t

he status qu o mo me nt ari ly while ob ta ini ngmor e inf or matio n, may

be mos t r e a so na

ble in lig ht of the fa c ts kn ow n to the of fi c e r a t the ti me. ”); Gu rro la v . S tate , 877 S.W .2d 300, 302-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The mer e appr oach of police off

icer s cause s only

minimal inconvenience
. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 864 S.W .2d 708, 7 1 5 (T ex. App.—Dallas 1993), aff’d , 912 S.W .2d 2277

(Tex. C ri m . App. 1995). Requiringthat an individual yield to a show of a uthority by the police
serve s the public interest by encour ag ing c ompliance with police or d er s wi t hout sacrif icing the in d iv id u a l’ s r ig h ts to c h a ll e n g e th e la w f u ln e s s o f th o s e o r d e r s. Id
. at 72 3. B ut a c iti zen is f re e to terminate a

n encounte r at a

ny time. Gu rro la , 877 S.W .2d at 302-03. A d e te nti on , a s o pp os e d to an arr e st, may be jus tif ie d on le ss t ha n p ro ba ble c a us e if a per son is reasona

bly suspected of

criminal ac tivity

based on spe cific, a

rticulable f

acts. Te r r

yv. Oh io , 3 92 U. S. 1 , 2 1- 22 (1 96 8) ; Car mo uc hev . S

tate , 10 S.W .3d 323, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An investig ative dete ntion is a confrontation of a citizen b y law enf orce ment office rs wher ein the citizen yields to a display of authority

and is temporar ily

detained f

or purpose s of an investig ation. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 912 S.W .2d 227, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Reasonable suspicion exi sts when, based on the t otality of circumstance s, the officer has specific , articula ble fa cts that, when c ombined with rational infer ences fr o m t h o se fa cts, would lead him to rea sonably conclude that a par

ticular person is, has bee n, or soon will be eng ag ed in cr iminal activity
. Fo rd v . S tate , 158 S.W .3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Her e, the a

rre sting off

icer s testified that they

wer e d i s p atche d to the apar tment complex based on a c itiz en’s suspicions o f i l l egal drug activity . At 2:30 a.m., they encounte red O. G. J. and ano the r pe rs on kn ow n to the m f ro m pr e vio us arr e sts fo r gun s a nd dr ug s in the vic ini ty of the la un dr y ro om wh e re the y ha d be e n tol d to loo k. O. G. J. an d th e oth e r i nd ivi du a l w e re the on ly persons in view ne ar the laundry room at the late hour; O.G.J. was a juvenile, a nd the other pe rson was known to the police for c riminal activi ty . The police office rs thus observe d circ umstances
corr oboratingthe t ip and either supporting a

rea sonable suspicion of c riminal activity or providing8

them rea son to make fur ther inquiry
. See H

iibel , 542 U.S. at 185 (l aw e nforc ement off icer ’s
rea sonable suspicion that pe rson may be involved in c riminal activity permits office r to stop person for br ief time and take additional st ep s t o investigate furthe r). The se circ umstances include d the location’s re putation as a hig h drug traff icking are a, the time of nig ht when the of fice rs enc ountere d the individuals, O.G .J .’s ag e and appar ent violation of the city curf ew ordinanc es, an d O. G. J .’s association with a pe rson known to the police f or cr iminal activity . As the p o l i ce approa ched the individuals, they

beg an to run. The pol i ce m ad e a show of author ity by shouting at the two individuals to st op. O.G.J. and the other individual ran awa y from them. Another

police off

icer , arr iving on the sc ene in a

police van, a lso advised t hem t o stop and then joined the c hase. The police office rs wer e dre ssed in police uniforms a nd clea rly identified. Ba sed on t he officer s’ obs ervations that corr oborate d the i nformation they had bee n dis patc he d to inv e sti g a te , th e of fi c e rs we re e nti tle d to dr aw inf e re nc e s fr om t

he fa c ts i n li g ht o f t

he ir experience s that justified a temporary detention. Te rry , 3 92 U. S. at 21 . In a dd iti on , f lig ht f ro m a show of authority is a fac tor in consideringwhether there is reasona

ble suspicion. See, e .g. , Brooks
v . S tat e , 7 6 S. W.3 d 4 26 , 4 34 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 02 , n o p e t.) ; Re y es v . S tate , 899 S.W. 2d 31 9, 32 4- 25 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 95 , p e t. r e f’ d) ; see also United States v

. Silva , 957 F.2d 157, 160 ( 5th Cir. 1992). Ample evidenc e exists t o demonstrate that the office rs had a basis for

approa ching O.G.J. and for tempora rily detaining him to investi g ate th e co n duct that ini tiate d th e sto p. O. G. J.’s re fu sa l to c omp ly wi th t he of fi c e rs ’ r e pe a te d re qu e sts wa s an atte mpt to evade detention. The evidence is both leg ally and factually sufficie nt for the trial court to find the alleg ations of eva ding de tention to be true.9 CO NC LU SION Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d O .G .J.’ s is su e , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: De cembe r 20, 2006