NO. 07-09-0144-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEA LS FOR THE SEV ENTH DISTRICT OF TEXA S

AT AMAR ILLO PANELB DECEMBE R 17, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVID O. MEEKINS, AP PELLAN T

V. THE S TATE OF TEXA S, APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LU BBOCK COUNTY; NO . 2 00 7- 44 31 60 ; H ON ORAB LE D RU E FA RM ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C .J., and CAMPB ELL an d HAN COCK, JJ.
DI SS EN TI NG OP IN ION
As I understand the C ourt’s reaso ning, it finds the co nsensual search of app ellant’s pocket follow ed the officer’s unreaso nably p rolonged detention of appella nt, and marijuana found in the pocket w as th us fruit of the poiso nous tree. I agree wi th the Cou rt that an of fi ce r’ s re qu es t fo r co ns en t tos ea rch av eh ic lei nv ol ve d in at ra ffi c sto p, although otherwise pe rmissible, may no netheless p rolong a detention to an unreason able d egree. Se e Ko th e v. St

ate , 152 S.W.3d 54, 65 ( Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (noting that a routin e check of a driver’s license and car regi stration may undul y prolo ng a d etention, making theIn theab se nc e o f fi nd in gsof fa ct, we vi ewtheev id en ce in theli gh t m os t f av orab leto 1 th e tri al co urt’ s r ul in g. Ca rm ou ch e v. St ate , 1 0 S. W.3 d 32 3, 3 27 -2 8 (T ex .C ri m.A pp . 2 00 0)

. 2 offi ce r’ s ac ti on u nreas ona ble und er the circu ms ta nc es ). But t he t ri al c ourt reasonably could ha ve co nc lu de d th atd id n oto cc ur h ere. As the C ourt notes, the ex change b etween ap pellant and the officer concerning
co ns en t t o se arch th e ve hi cl e to ok a bo uta min ut e. Fro m its i nc ep ti on toa pp el la nt ’sa rre st, the detention took something over six minutes. T he Cou rt accuratelycharacter izes as “e va si ve ” a pp el la nt ’sre sp on se s t o th e of fi ce r’ s first se ve ra l qu es ti on s re ga rd in g co ns en t. Appell ant and the State di sagree over the effect of appella nt’s “yes” or “I guess” response to the officer’s l ast q uestion, and the Court finds i t insufficient to demonstrate appell ant’s unequivoca l and voluntary consen t to search of the car. Accepting the Court’s co nclusion as correct, surely the same eviden ce permitted the t rial court to conclude appellan t did n ot
re fu se t he o ffi ce r c on se nttose arch h isca r. See Ol guinv. St ate , No. 08-02-0241 -CR, 2003 1 WL 221590 48 (Tex .App.–El P aso, September 18 , 2003 pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not de si gn at ed fo r p ub li ca ti on ) ( di sa gree in g wi th co nt en ti on d ef en da nt ’sf

ai lu re s t o re sp on d to of fi ce r’ s req ue stsfo r c on se ntco ns ti tu te d re fu sa ls ); cf. Da vi s v. S ta te , 947 S .W.2d 240, 241 (T ex .C ri m.A pp . 1 99 7) ; McQ ua rte rs v. St ate , 58 S .W. 3d 2 50 , 25 4 (T ex .A pp .– Fort Worth 20 0 1 , p e t. re f’ d ) (b o th fi n d i n g d e te n ti o n s i mp ro p e rl yp ro l o n g e d a ft e r s to p p e d s u s p e cts
re fu se d co ns en t t o se arch ve hi cl es ).3

The vid eo recording shows the officer to ld app ellant to step out of the car immediately after app ellant’s response to the officer’s last reque st for consent. The officer te sti fi ed , a nd a pp el la ntd oe s n otd is ag re e, th ata pp el la ntre ac he d towa rd o ne o f h isp oc ke ts as he stepped out of the vehicle, leading the officer to grab appellant’s arm then seek hi s consent to sea rch the pocket. Appell ant co ns ented to the search of the pocket and the marijuana was fo und

. Case law p rovides an officer may as a matter of routine ask a n oc cu pa nttost ep o uto f a ve hi cl e af te r a traf fi c s to p. Pen nsylv

ania v. Mimms , 434 U .S. 106, 10 9- 11 , 9 8 S. Ct . 3 30 , 3 32 -3 3, 5 4 L. Ed .2 d 33 1 (1 97 7)(p er cu ri am ); Rh odes

v. S ta te , 945 S.W.2d 115, 117 -19 (Tex.Crim.App.199 7). Under the circumstances presented here, I se e nothing co nstitutionally wrong wit h t he officer’s instruction of appell ant to step o ut of the car. I would find the a ctions that le ad to di scovery of the marijuana in app ellant’s pocket were not u nreasonable, and would affirm the trial court’s denia l of the motion to supp ress. Be ca us e th e Co urt d oe s n ot , I re sp ectfu ll y d is se nt

.

James T. Campbe ll Justice
Pu bl is h.