S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07- 186- CR
W AL T E R R I L E Y R OB B I NS AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 235TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F CO O KE CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A ju ryc o n v ic t e d A p p e lla n tW a lt e rR ile yR o b b in so fd r iv in g w h ile i nt o x i c a te d. Appel l antpl ea ded t r ue t o aha bi t ualof f end eren han ce m ent par agr aph , an d t he j ury as se ss ed puni sh m entatf ourye ar s’ i nca r ce r at i on a nd a $1, 500 . 00 f i ne. I n t hr eepoi nt s, A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by2

den yi ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s, an d byde nyi ng hi s re q u e st ed cha r ge i ns t r u c ti o n rega r di ng t he ar r es t i ng of f i ce r ’ s st op ofhi s veh i cl e a nd t hatt he
e v i d e n c e i sfa c tu a l l yi n s u fficie n t to p ro v e th a t h e w a si n to x i c a te d . W e a ffir m . I I . Fac t ualan d Proce duralBac kground O n M a y1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , S t a t e T r o o p e rS c o t tM e e k ss t o p p e d t h e v e h ic le A ppe l l antw asdr i vi ng. Appel l antw asar r es t ed f orD W I . A ppe l l antf i l ed a
m ot i on t o s uppr es s al l ev i den ce“ se i z ed orobt ai ned ” asa r e s u l t o f th e s t op, al l egi ng t hathe “w as sei zed w i t hou tany r eas o n a bl e suspi ci on t hathe w as e n g a g e d i n c ri m i n a l a c ti v i ty .”T h e tri a l c o u rt d e n i e d h i sm o ti o n . A . H ear i ng on M ot i on t o S upp r ess A tt he suppr essi on hear i ng, M eeks t est i f i ed f ort he S t at e. M eeks t est i f i ed t hat on t he eve ni ng of M ay 19, he w as dr i vi ng al ong I nt er st at e 35 “e nf or ci ng t r af f i c l aw s. ” M eeks st at ed t hat he obser ved a 20 02 bl ack Li ncol n C onti nental at t em pt i ng t o pass hi m . H e sai d t hat t he vehi cl e caugh t hi s at t ent i on becau se i tw as“ m ovi ng ba ckan d f ort h w i t hi n [ i t s] l ane . ” A ft er f ol l ow i ng t he veh i cl e f or
r oug hl y one- hal fm i l e, M eeks t est i f i ed t hathe obser ved t hatt he passengerw as
n o t w e a ri n g a s e a t b e l t. M e e k si n i ti a te d a tra ffic s to p . M e e k s s ai d heac t i vat ed hi s ove r - hea d l i ght s, butt he veh i cl e d i d not
r es pond by p ul l i ng ov er . M ee kst es t i fi e d thathew oul d ha ve exp ec t ed t he veh i cl e t o i m m edi at el y pu l l ove rt o t he sh oul der . M ee ksco nt i nue d t o f ol l ow t heTh e vi deo t hatw as adm i t t ed i nt o e v id e nce i s som et i m es outoff ocus, 2 but t he passengeri n A ppel l ant ’ s vehi cl e can be seen at t hi s poi nt l eani ng ov er t o t he m i ddl e o ft he veh i cl e. Atot hert i m es i n th e v i d e o , t he dr i ver ’ s and p a s s e n g e r’ss i l h o u e tte sc a n n o t b e c l e a rl yi d e n ti fi e d . Th e vi deo’ s audi o i s som et i m es scr am bl ed, how ever , at t hi s poi ntM eeks 3 ca n c l ea r l y behe ar d t el l i ng A ppe l l ant , “ You’ r e b ei ng ha ndc uf f ed r i ghtnow , not because you ’ r e underar r est , butj ustf orm y saf et y. ” 3 veh i cl e f or ano t her one - hal fm i l e b ef or e a ct i vat i ng hi s si r en i n a n a t t em ptt o s t op t he vehi cl e. M eeks sai d t hat , aft er a c t i vat i ng hi s si r en, i tt ook up t o an addi t i onal t hi rt y seconds f or t he vehi cl e t o event ual l y pul l over . M eeks sai d t hat t he vehi cl e “act ual l y st art ed t o pul l overont o t he shoul der and t hen pul l ed back onto t he i nt er st at e and t hen he pu l l ed back on the s hou l deragai n. ” M ee kst es t i f i ed t hatw hi l e he w asatt em pt i ng t o pul l t he veh i cl e o verhe
o b s e rv e d “ a lo t o f m o v e m e n t , f u rt iv e m o v e m e n t sin s id e t h e v e h ic le s p e c if ic a lly by t he passenger . [ Th e p a s s e n ger ] w as m ovi ng t o t he cent eroft he vehi cl e, bac k t o t he pas se nge rs i de, ba ck t o t he ce nt er and l ook ed l i ke t o m e [ l i ket he p a s s e n g e r] w a sa tte m p ti n g to h i d e s o m e th i n g u n d e r th e fro n t s e a t.” 2 M e e k s s tate d tha t he u se d h i s p u b l i c an n o u n c e m e n t ( “P A ”) sy s t e m to i n stru c t A p p e l l a n t t o ex i t t h e v e h i c l e an d tha t he i n i ti a l l yh a n d c u ffed A p p e l l a n t, 3 but l at err em oved the handcuf f s. M eeks t est i f i ed t hat A ppel l ant w as notf r ee to l e a v e w h i l e h e w a sh a n d c u ffe d o r a fte r h e h a d re m o v e d th e h a n d c u ffs .4

A ppe l l antt es t i f i ed t hathedi d not i ni t i al l y pul l ove r f or M ee ks bec aus e h e th o u g h t M e e k s w a s a ttem p ti n g t o p u l l o v e r so m e o n e o th e r t h a n h i m se l f. A ppe l l ants t at ed, “ [ I ] tw ason t he hi ghw ay and t her e w asl ot s oft r af f i c a nd I kne w I ha dn’ tdonean yt hi ng t o w ar r antbe i ng pu l l ed ove r . ” W hen as ke d w hy he di d n o ti mme d i a t e l yp u l l o v e rwh e n Me e k sa c t i v a t e d h i ss i r e n , A p p e l l ant
s ta te d , “I d o n ’t re m e m b e r.”A p p e l l a n t te s ti fi e d th a t M e e k s ’sa ttitu d e to w a rd h i m w a s “ s c a ry ” a n d i n ti m i d a ti n g . T h e S ta te th e n p l a y e d th e v i d e o ta p e fro m M e e k s ’sp a tro l c a r’so n b o a rd vi deo cam er a. Th e t r i al courtdeni ed A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o suppr ess and cal l ed i n th e j u ry . B. Th e Jury Tri al M eeks al so t est i f i ed bef or e t he j ur y. H e t est ifie d t o m any of t he sam e th i n g s h e h a d sta ted d u ri n g the su p p res sion h e a ri n g . I n ad d i ti o n , th e sta te pl aye d t he vi deo f r om t he onboa r d c am er a f ort he j ury a s M ee ksde sc r i bed t he
e v e n ts i n th e v i d e o . W h ile t h e ju ry w a t c h e d t h e v id e o , M e e k st e s t if ie d t h a th e re m a in e d in h is pat r ol ca r a n d u s e d t h e P A s y s t e m t o i n s t r u c t Ap p e l l a n t t o g e t o u t o f hi s car bec aus e “ I t hough tt her e w as a pos si bi l i t y t hat t hey m i ght hav e bee n hi di ng a
w ea pon”an d “ I don’ t kno w w hy [ t he veh i cl e o cc upa nt s ar e] m ovi ng a r ound a l otan d I don’ tkn ow w hy t hey ’ r e not st oppi ng. So f orm y s af et y I ’ m notgoi ngTh e vi deo do es cl ear l y depi ctt hat w hen t he passengerexi t ed t he vehi cl e, 4 sh e l eftt he pas se nge rdoorope n. W hen M ee ksap pr oac hed t he veh i cl e , he l ea ned i ns i de t he veh i cl e, pul l ed outt w o bott l es , pl ac ed t hem on t he r oof oft he veh i cl e, an d t hen t ookbot h bott l esan d pou r ed l i qui d f r om t hem i nt o t he di t ch. Th e vi deo— and audi o f r om t he vi deo— confi r m t hatM eeks had ar r est ed 5 t he pas se nge rby t hi s ti m e a n d t hatbe f or e h e c al l ed di sp at ch con ce r ni ng A p p e ll a n t’ s i d e n ti fi c a ti o n , a n o th e r offi c e r arr i v e d an d ad v i se d M e e k s th a t a v e h ic le m a t c h in g t h e d e s c r ip t io n o ft h e v e h ic le A p p e lla n t w a s d r iv in g h a d “ a c a ll o u t o n i t fo r e rra ti c d ri v i n g .” 5 t o w al k u p t o t hatca r. . . .” M ee kss t at ed t hathef ound t w o ha l f

- f ul l w i ne coo l er s i n t he f r ontf l oor boa r d. 4 W h i l e t h e v i d e o wa ss t i l l p l a y i n g , M e e k st e s t i f i e d t h a ta n o t h e ro f f i cer a r r iv e d o n t h e s c e n e a n d e x p l a i n e d t o h im t h a tt h e r e h a d b e e n a “ c a ll [in
con ce r ni ng Appel l ant ’ s veh i c l e ] f orer r at i c d r i vi ng a nd w ea vi ng i n a nd ou tof t r af f i c. ” M ee ksw asuna w ar e o ft he ca l l a t t he t i m e h e i ni t i at ed t he st op. M eeks al so sai d t hat by t hi s t i m e he had ar r est ed t he passengerand pl aced her i n t he back ofhi s vehi cl e. M eeks f u rt h e rst at ed t hathe had no tyetm ade a 5 det er m i nat i on w het hert o ar r estA ppel l antf orD W I butt hathe di d have “a
cou pl e o fcl uesof i m p a i r m ent . ” M ee ksal so t es t i f i ed t hatde sp i t e Appel l ant t e llin g h im o ft w o d if f e r e n t lo c a t io n s w h e r e A p p e lla n t ’s d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e w o u ld be, A ppe l l antne verpr oduc ed a d r i ver ’ s l i ce ns e a nd on l y ha d a n i den t i f i ca t i on c a rd w i th h i m .A l th o u g h M e e k sd i d n o t te s ti fyc o n c e rn i n g th e s ta t u s o fA p p e l l a n t’s 6 l i ce ns e, t he vi deo cl ea r l y r eve al s t h a t M e e k s ca l l ed i n t o hi s di sp at che ran d l ea r ned t hatA ppe l l ant ’ s l i ce ns e w ass us p end ed bef or e M ee ksco nduc t ed t he fi e l d s o b ri e tyte s ts . 6 I n a n e f f ortt o de t er m i ne i f A ppe l l ant w asi nt oxi ca t ed, M ee kss ai d t hathe f i r stpe r f or m ed t he port abl e b r ea t h t es t on A ppe l l ant . M ee ks t es t i f i ed t hatt he 6 port abl e br eat h t esti ndi cat ed t he pr esence ofal coho l i n A ppel l ant ’ s sys t em . M e e k s th e n te s ti fi e d th a t h e i sc e rti fi e d to a d m i n i s te r a n d d i d a d m i n i s te r a num berofs t and ar d f i el d s obr i et y t es t s i ncl udi ng t he hor i z ont alga z e n ys t agm us t est , t he ni ne- st ep and t ur n t est , and t he one- l egged st and t est . M eeks al so t esti f i ed t ha tA pp el l an tdi sp l ay ed si x of si x p os si bl e cl ue s f or t he ho r i zon t al ga ze nys t agm ust es t . M ee kss ta te d t hathe“ as si gne d”t w o c l uest o Appel l anton th e n i n e -s te p a n d tu rn te s t, b u t “ i f y o u w a n t to re a l l y g o b y th e m a n u a l , th a t’s

--y o u k n o w , m o s to f f ic e r sw o u ld p r o b a b lya s s ig n h im f iv e c lu e s , a n d I o n ly
a s s ig n e d h im t w o .” M e e k st e s t if ie d t h a th e o b s e rv e d t h r e e o ff o u rp o s s ib le cl ues w hen he cond uct ed t he one- l egged st and t eston A ppel l ant . M eeks t hen st at ed t hathe condu ct ed a nonst andar di zed f i el d sobr i et y t est , a “di vi ded at t ent i on t est , ” but M eeks nevert est i f i ed speci f i cal l y w het herA ppel l antf ai l edT h e v i d e o sh o w s th a t M e e k s i n stru c ted A p p e l l a n t t o tou c h h i s th u m b to 7 e a c h o f his ea c h o f his fi n g e rs w h i l e co u n ti n g a n d A p p e l l a n t w a s u n a b l e to perf or m t he t es tasi ns t r uct ed. Att hi s poi ntM ee ksi nf or m ed A ppe l l antt hathe w a s u n d e r a rre s t a n d h a n d c u ffe d h i m a g a i n . D ur i ng t he t r i al , El ai ne H udna l l w asal so r ef er r ed to a s M s. Saude rby 8 A p p e l l a n t’sc o u n s e l . 7 th e tes t. M e e k s a l so sta ted tha t du ri n g h i s e n c o u n ter w i th A p p e l l a n t,

7 A ppe l l ants ai d he dr ank “o ne m ar gar i t a”t hatev eni ng. M ee kst es t i f i ed t hathe
u l ti m a te l yp l a c e d A p p e l l a n t u n d e r a rre s t fo r D W I. Thr eew i t nes se s, ot her t han A ppe l l ant hi m se l f , t es t i f i ed bef or e t he j ury on A ppel l ant ’ s behal f

— I r a Sh er r i l l , C har l ey R odd en, and El ai ne H udn al l , w ho w as 8 t he pas se nge ri n t he v ehi cl e t he ni ghtA ppe l l antw asar r es t ed. Sher r i l l an d Rodden bot h t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l ant had onl y one m ar gar i t a t hatev eni ng a nd t hatA ppel l antw as asked t o dr i ve H udn al l hom e because H udn a llw as i n to x i c a te d a n d u n a b l e to d ri v e a n d A p p e l l a n t w a sn o t i n to x i c a te d . H udn al l t est i f i ed t hatshe had asked t o be dr i ven ho m e because she w as una bl e t o dr i ve and t hatw hen s he and A ppe l l ant had st oppe d t o buy gas , s he pur cha se d a f our - pac k o fw i ne coo l er s. She t es t i f i ed t hataft erge t t i ng gass he “o pen ed t he w i ne coo l er [ s] , onef or m e . . . one f or hi m . A nd w e l eftt o go on h o m e .”B u t s h e s a i d th a t A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t d ri n kh i sw i n e c o o l e r.8

A ppe l l ant t es t i f i ed t hat ea r l i er i n t he eve ni ng heha d a t t end ed a r et i r em ent part y f or a f r i end . Appel l ants ai d hei ni t i al l y or der ed a m ar gar i t a t hatw asnot sat i sf act or y. H e sai d t hat he asked t he w ai t ert o br i ng hi m a new one and that aft erm or e t han t w ent y m i nut est he w ai t erdi d. But A ppe l l antt es t i f i ed t hathe di d notco ns um e t he ent i r e d r i nk. Appel l antt es t i f i ed t h a t ro u g h l y a n hou r passed bet w een w hen t he w ai t er br oug ht hi m t he r epl acem entdr i nk and w hen he vol unteer ed t o dr i ve H udn al l hom e. A ppel l antadm i t t ed th a tw hen M eeks
a s k e d h i m wh e n a n d h o w mu c h h e h a d t o d r i n k t h a t n i g h t , h e t o l d M eeks an i nco r r ec tt i m e b ec aus e h e w as n’ t“ t hi nki ng c l ea r l y”an d s i m pl y w ant ed t o gi ve M ee ks“ an ans w ers o [ he w oul d s t op qu es t i o n i n g hi m ] . ” A ppe l l ants ai d he dr oveH udna l l hom e b ec aus e “s he w asdr unk ” and ha d a sk ed so m eon e t o dr i ve h e r h o m e . H e te s ti fi e d th a t h e d i d n o t a s kH u d n a l l to p u rc h a s e th e w i n e c o o l e rs
w hen t hey st opp ed f or gas. A nd A ppel l ant t est i f i ed t hat he had not consum ed anyal coh ol be t w ee n t he t i m e he dr ank t he onem ar gar i t a e ar l i eri n t he eve ni ng a n d w h e n M e e k sp u l l e d h i m o v e r. A ppel l antagai n sai d t hathe di d not i ni t i al l y pul l overf orM eeks because he “k n e w h e h a d n ’ t d o n e a n y t h i n g [ wr o n g ] ” a n d t h a t h e t h o u g h t M e e k sw as a t t e m p t in g t o s ig n a l t o h im t o s lo w d o w n s o t h a tM e e k sc o u ld p a s sh im . A pp e l l a n t s a i d t h a t h e d i d n o t f u l l y c o mp l y wi t h M e e k s ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n sw hen asked t o exi tt he vehi cl e because he w as “conf used” by M eeks’ s havi ng st at edTh e vi deo dep i ct s t hatM eeks i ni t i al l y used h is P A t o say “D r i ver , st ep 9 o u to ft h e c a rw it h y o u rh a n d su p , p le a s e .” A p p e lla n tg o to u to ft h e v e h ic le w i t h hi s han dsathi s si de. M ee ks , us i ng t he PA , t hen s ai d, “ Keep y ourha nds u p w h e r e I c a n s e e t h e m , s t e p o v e rh e r e in t h isb a r d it c h .” A p p e lla n t r a is e d h is h a n d s . T h e n , a s A p p e lla n t s t e p p e d in t o t h e d it c h , h e d r o p p e d h ish a n d st o h is s i d e s a n d M e e k s , u s i n g t h e P A, s t a t e d “ K e e p y o ur hand s o n y o u rh e a d . ” As M e e k s b e g a n to a d d res s th e p a ss e n g e r, A p p e l l a n t ag a i n d rop p e d h i s h a n d s to h i s s i d e s , a n d M e e k s e x c l a i m s , “ D ri v e r! I s a i d k e e p y o u r h a n d s o n y o u r h e a d !” 9 atf i r stt o” ke ep yourha ndsw her e I ca n s eet hem ” and t hen l at er st at i ng “ put y o u r h a n d so n to p o f y o u r h e a d .” 9 A ppe l l antt es t i f i ed t hatw hen hew as br ought t o j ai l her ef us ed t o pr ovi de
a s a m p le o fh is b r e a t h f o rt e s t in g . H e a ls o s a id t h a th e h a d p r e v io u s lyh a d h is l i cense suspended f orr ef usi ng a br eat h t est . H e t hen t est i f i ed t hathe had t hr ee pr i or con vi ct i ons f or D W I i n Texa s and one pr i or ar r es t f or D W I i n New M exi co. A ppel l antst at ed he d id not r em em beri ft he N ew M exi co ar r esteverr esul t ed i n a c o n v i c ti o n . C . The J ury Char ge A ppe l l ants ubm i t t ed t o t he t r i alco urtan ad di t i ona l i ns t r uct i on t o be i ncl uded i n t he j ur y char ge. The cou rtdeni ed t he subm i ssi on. Th e r equest ed i ns t r uct i on e xpl ai ned a per so n’ s r i ght s unde rt he Fourt h Am end m e n t to t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on a nd a rt i cl e 1, s ec t i on 9 of th e Cons t i t ut i on oft he S ta te o f T e x a s . S ee U .S . C ONST . am end. I V ; Tex . C onst . art . I , § 9. I tf urt her10

des cr i best he w ar r ant r equ i r em ent and a num berofex ce pt i onst o t he w ar r ant req u i rem e n t an d the n en d s w i th this ex c e rpt: Th er ef or e, you ar e i nst r uct ed t hatbef or e you con si der any evi dence t hatw asde ri v e d b y ei t heran i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on orar r es tof t he def endan t f or pur poses ofgui l tori nno cence, t hatt he st at e has t he bu r den ofpr ooft o pr ovebe yond a r ea so nab l e d oubtt hatan y i nve st i gat i ve det ent i on a nd/ora rr es tw asnoti n vi ol at i on oft he def end ant ’ s con st i t ut i ona l orCode ofCr i m i nalPr oce du re p rote c ti o n s. U n l e ss th e sta te d o e s s o b e y o n d a re a so n a b l e d o u b t, you ar e i ns t r uct ed to n o t con si deran y e vi den cede r i ved f r om or s te m m i n g fro m th e i l l e g a l a c ts . T h e a c tu a l j u ryc h a rg e d i d n o t i n c l u d e i n s tru c ti o n sre g a rd i n g A p p e l l a n t’s
r i ght s unde rt he Fourt h Am end m entt o t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on a nd
art i cl e 1, s ec t i on 9 oft he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on. N or di d t he j ury c har ge as k t he j ury t o det er m i ne i f M eeks’ s st opp i ng A ppel l antw as i n vi ol at i on of t hese r i ghts . The j ury c har ge w asa st and ar d j ury c har ge as ki n g the j ury t o de t er m i ne
w h e th e r A p p e l l a n t w a sg u i l tyo f D W I. I I I . D i sc us si on A . Th e Tr i alC ourt ’ s D eni alofA ppel l ant ’ s M ot i on t o S upp r ess In h is f ir s tp o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rt e r r e d b yd e n y in g h is
m o ti o n to s u p p res s e v i d e n c e o b tai n e d w h e n M e e k s s to p p e d A p p e l l a n t. A ppe l l antch al l eng esbot h t he i ni t i al st op and M ee ks ’ s con t i nue d de t ent i on of hi m. A p p e l l a n ta l s o a r g u e st h a tt h e wi n e c o o l e r sa n d t h e v i d e o d i s p l ayi ng M e e k s ’sd i s c o v e ryo f th e m s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u p p re s s e d .11 1. S t a n d a r d o fR e v i e w W e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess evi dence un der
a b i fu rc a te d s ta n d a rd o f re v i e w . A m a do r v. S tate , 221 S. W . 3d 666 , 673 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; G uzm a nv. S tate , 955 S . W . 2d 85, 89 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 7) . I n r evi ew i ng t he t r i alco urt ’ s decis i o n, w e d o noten gag e i n ourow n fa c tu a l re v i e w . Ro m ero v. S tate , 800 S . W . 2d 539, 543 (T e x . Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 0 ); Best v. S tate , 118 S. W . 3d 857, 861 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2003, no pet . ) . The t r i alj udgei s t he so l e t r i er of f ac t and j udge oft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he
w i tn e s s e s a n d th e w e i g h t to b e g i v e n th e i r te s ti m o n y . W i e dev. S tate , 214 S .W .3 d 1 7 , 2 4

– 2 5 (T e x . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); S tate v. Ro ss , 32 S . W . 3d 853, 8 5 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ), m odif i ed on other groun ds by S tate v. Cul len , 195 S . W . 3d 69 6 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ). T h er ef or e, w e gi ve al m ostt ot al d e f e r e n c e t o t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s r u lin g s o n (1 ) q u e s t io n s o f h is t o r ic a l f a c t , e v e n if t he t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on oft hos e f ac t s w asnotba se d on an eva l uat i on of
c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r, a n d (2 ) a p p l i c a ti o n -o f-l a w -to -fa c t q u e s ti o n sth a t tu rn o n a n e v a l u a t i o n o f c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r. A m ado r, 221 S. W . 3d a t673; Mo n tan ez v. S tate , 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 8

– 0 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); Jo hn so nv. S tate , 68 S . W . 3d 64 4, 65 2– 53 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 02 ) . Bu tw hen app l i ca t i on- of

- l aw - t o- f ac tque st i onsdo n ott ur n on t he cr edi bi l i t y and de m ea nor oft he w i t ne s s e s , w e r evi ew t he t r i alco urt ’ s r ul i ngson t hos e q ues t i onsde12

n o v o . A m ado r, 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 7 3 ; E stradav. S tate , 154 S. W . 3d 604, 607 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); Johnson , 68 S . W . 3d a t652– 53. St at ed ano t her w ay, w hen r evi ew i ng t he t r i alco urt ’ s r ul i ng on a m ot i on t o suppr ess, w e m ustvi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m ostf avor abl e t o t he t r i al
c o u rt’sru l i n g . W

i ede , 2 1 4 S .W .3 d a t 2 4 ; S ta tev. Kelly , 204 S. W . 3d 808, 818 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 06 ) . W hen t he r ecor d i s si l enton t he r easons f ort he t r i al
cou rt ’ s r ul i ng, orw hen , as i n t hi s ca se , t her e ar e no e xpl i ci tf ac tf i ndi ngsan d
n e i th e r p a rtyti m e l yre q u e s te d fi n d i n g sa n d c o n c l u s i o n sfro m th e tri a l c o u rt, w e im p lyt h e n e c e s s a ryf a c tf in d in g st h a tw o u ld s u p p o rtt h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s ru lin g if t hee v i d e n c e , v i e we d i n t h e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ sr ul i ng, s u p p o rts th o s e fi n d i n g s . Kelly , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 8 ; se e A m ado r, 221 S . W . 3d
a t 6 7 3 ; W

i ede , 214 S . W . 3d at 25. W e t hen r evi ew t he t r i al cou rt ’ s l ega l r ul i ng de nov o unl ess t he i m pl i ed f actf i ndi ngs suppo rte d b y t he r ecor d ar e al so d i s p o s i ti v e o f th e l e g a l ru l i n g . Kelly , 204 S. W . 3d a t819. W e m us t uphol d t he t r i al cou rt ’ s r ul i ng i f i t i s su pport ed by t he r ec or d a nd
c o rre c t u n d e r a n yth e o ryo f l a w a p p l i c a b l e to th e c a s e e v e n i f th e tri a l c o u rt g a v e th e w ro n g re a s o n fo r i ts ru l i n g . State v. Stevens , 235 S. W . 3d 736, 740 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); A rm e n da ri z v. S tate , 123 S . W . 3d 401, 404 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ), cert. denied, 5 4 1 U .S . 9 7 4(2 0 0 4 ).13

I n de t er m i ni ng w het her a t r i alco urt ’ s dec i si on i s su pport ed by t he r ec or d,
w e g ene r al l y c on s i d e r onl y e vi den cead duc ed att he su ppr es si on he ar i ng b e c a u s e th e ru l i n g w a sb a s e d o n i t ra th e r th a n e v i d e n c e i n tro d u c e d l a te r. S ee G u ti errez v. S tate , 2 2 1 S .W . 3 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Rach al v. S tate , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 519 U. S. 1043 ( 19 96 ) . But t hi s gener al r ul e i s i napp l i cabl e w hen, as i n t hi s case, t he part i es consensual l y r el i t i gat ed t he suppr essi on is s u e dur i ng t r i al on t he m er i t s. G uti er rez , 2 2 1 S .W .3 d a t 6 8 7 ; Rachal, 91 7 S . W . 2d at 79 9. I ft he S t at e r ai sed t he i ss ue att r i alei t her w i t houtobj ec t i on orw i t h s ubs equ entpa rt i ci pat i on i n t he i nqui ry byt he def ens e, t he def end anti s dee m ed t o hav e el ec t ed t o r e- ope n t he evid e n c e , a n d w e m ay consi dert he r el evantt r i al t est i m ony i n ourr evi ew . Rachal, 9 1 7 S .W .2 d a t 7 9 9 .

2. D i sc us si on ofA ppe l l ant ’ s Fi r stPoi nt
a. The St op In p a rto fh is f ir s tp o in t , A p p e lla n t a r g u e s t h a t M e e k s ’s s t o p p in g o fh im “w asba se d on a pr et ext w i t hout su f f i ci ent su pport f or t he st op. ” W e a r e n ot p e rs u a d e d b yth i sa rg u m e n t. Bo t h t he Fou rt h A m endm entand art i cl e one, sect i on ni ne oft he T exas C o n s t it u t io n g u a r a n t e e in d iv id u a lst h e r i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n a b le
s e a rc h e s a n d s e i z u re s . S ee U .S . C ONST . a m e n d . I V ; T e x . C o n st. a rt . I , § 9.14

T h e s e rig h t sd o n o tf o r b id a ll s e a r c h e sa n d s e iz u r e s , b u to n lyu n r e a s o n a b le
s e a rc h e s a n d s e i z u re s . D a vi s v. S tate , 947 S . W . 2d 240, 242 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 7) . An of f i ce r’ss t op ofan au t om obi l e c ons t i t ut esa se i z ur e w i t hi n t he
m ea ni ng of t he Fourt h A m end m ent and t he se ar ch and s ei z ur e p r ovi si on oft he
s ta te c o n s ti tu ti o n . S e eCo rbin v. S tate , 85 S. W . 3d 272 , 276 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ); see al

so D el aware v. Prouse , 440 U. S. 648, 653, 99 S. Ct . 1391 , 1396 (1 9 7 9 ); Jo hn so nv. S tate , 9 1 2 S .W .2 d 2 2 7 , 2 3 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). A n a ut om obi l e s t op i s j us t i f i ed w hen an of f i ce rha s r ea so nab l e s us pi ci on to b e l i e v e th a t a t r a f f i c v i o l a ti o n h a so c c u rre d . Ter ryv. O hio , 392 U. S. 1, 2 1

– 2 2 , 8 8 S . C t. 1 8 6 8 , 1 8 8 0 (1 9 6 8 ); Woo dsv. Sta te , 9 56 S. W . 2d 33, 35 ( Tex. Cr i m . A p p . 1 997 ) . The bur den i s on t he St at e t o de m ons t r at e t he
re a s o n a b l e n e s so f th e i n v e s ti g a to rys to p . Bi sh op v. S tate , 85 S . W . 3d 819, 822 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); Avi les v. S tate , 23 S. W . 3d 74, 79 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 00 , pet . r ef ’ d) . W h e th e rornotan of f i cerhas
r ea so nab l e su sp i ci on i s eva l uat ed f r om an obj ec t i ve per sp ec ti v e . W h ren v. United S tates , 5 1 7 U .S . 8 0 6 , 8 1 1 , 1 1 6 S . C t. 1 7 6 9 , 1 7 7 3 (1 9 9 6 ); United S tates v. Lopez- V

aldez , 1 7 8 F .3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 8 (5 th C i r.1 9 9 9 ); A vi les , 23 S . W . 3d at77. I n o th e rw or ds , l ook i ng a tt he f ac t s ava i l abl e t o t he of f i ce ratt he
m om entoft he i nvest i gat i on, w oul d a per son ofr easonabl e caut i on bel i eve t hat15

a tra ffic v i o l a ti o n o c c u rre d . Lopez- V aldez , 1 7 8 F .3 d a t 2 8 8 ; A vi les , 23 S . W . 3d
a t 7 7 . Th e f ai l ur e t o w eara seatbel tw hi l e i n th e fr o n tseatofa vehi cl e i s a
v i o l a ti o n o f s e c ti o n 5 4 5 .4 1 3 o f th e tra n s p o rta ti o n c o d e . S ee Tex. Tr ans p. Code A nn. § 5 4 5 .4 1 3 ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); se e al soTex. D ep’tof

Pub. Saf

ety v. To r res , 54 S. W . 3d 43 8, 44 1 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 20 01 , no pet . ) . M eeks t e s t i f i e d t h a th e o b s e rv e d t h a t t h e p a s s e n g e r wa s n o t we a r i n g a s e a tb e l t . He
s ta te d th a t h e c o u l d s e e th a t th e s tra p w a s n o t c o m i n g a c ro s sth e p a s s e n g e r’s sh oul der . Fu rt her , t he vi deo fr om M ee ks ’ s pat r ol ca rcl ea r l y de pi ct s t he pas se nge rt el l i ng M ee ks t hat sh e w or e h ers ea tbe l t“ ni net y- ni ne per ce ntoft he t i m e. ” Butw hen as ke d w hy s he w asnotw ea r i ng on e i n t hi s i n st anc e s he
a n s w e r e d , “ I g u e s sI ju s tf o r g o t .” W e h o ld t h a tt h e s e f a c t s , w h e n v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o st fav o rab l e to th e tr i a l co u rt ’s d e n i a l o f A p p e l l a n t’ s m o ti o n to
su ppr es s, su pport t hat M ee ks ’ s st oppi ng of A ppe l l ant ’ s veh i cl e w as j us t i f i ed by
rea so n a b l e su sp i c i o n . T h u s, w e o v e rr u l e th i s p o rt i o n o f A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t.

b. C ont i nue d Det ent i on In h is f ir s tp o in t A p p e lla n ta ls o a r g u e st h a tM e e k se f f e c t iv e lyp la c e d h im unde r ar r es t w hen he han dcu f f ed hi m on t he si de of t he r oad pr i or t o s ea r chi ng hi s veh i cl e. Thus , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hatt he se ar ch w asan i l l ega l s ea r ch and
a l l e v i d e n c e o fth e s e a rc h s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u p p re s s e d . T h e S ta te c o u n te rs16

t h a t w h a tM e e k sd id w a sc o n t in u e t o d e t a in A p p e lla n tb a s e d o n h is
o b s e rv a ti o n sth a t A p p e l l a n t m i g h t b e i n to x i c a te d . W e a g re e th a t M e e k s ’s
c o n ti n u e d d e te n ti o n w a sj u s ti fi e d . I n a t r a f f ic s t o p s it u a t io n , t h e p o lic e m a ya s kf o rid e n t if ic a t io n , a v a lid d ri v e r’sl i c e n s e , a n d p ro o f o f l i a b i l i tyi n s u ra n c e . D a vis , 947 S. W . 2d a t244. P o l i c e m a yc h e c kfo r o u ts ta n d i n g w a rra n ts . Id. Pol i ce of f i cer s m ay al so or der th e d ri v e r to g e t o u t o f th e v e h i c l e . S e ePenn s ylva ni av. Mi mms , 434 U. S. 106, 1 1 1 , 9 8 S . C t. 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 (1 9 7 7 ); se ealso Di ltz v. S tate , 172 S. W . 3d 681, 685 ( Tex . A pp. — East l and 2 00 5, no pet . ) . Furt her , as a gener al r ul e, of f i cer s m ay us e s uch f or ceasi s r ea so nab l y n e c e s s a ry t o e f f ec tt he goa l oft he
s to p — i n v e s ti g a ti o n , m a i n te n a n c e o f th e s ta tu sq u o , o r o ffice r s a fe ty . Rhodes
v. S tate , 9 4 5 S .W .2 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 (T e x . C ri m . A p p .), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 894 (1 9 9 7 ) ( citi

ng United Statesv. Sokol ow , 490 U. S . 1 , 1 0 , 109 S . Ct . 1581 , 1 5 8 7 (1 9 8 9 )). U n d e r c e rta i n c i rc u m s ta n c e s , th e h a n d c u ffin g o f th e v e h i c l e ’s
o c c u p a n t sm a yb e a p p r o p r ia t e t o e f f e c t u a t e o f f ic e r s a f e t y , s u c h a sw h e n itis
n e c e s s a ryto th w a rt th e s u s p e c t’sa tte m p t to fru s t r a te fu rth e r i n q u i ry . S ee Rhodes , 9 4 5 S .W .2 d a t 1 1 7 . D ur i ng t he cou r se o f a l a w f ul t r af f i c s t op, an of f i ce rw ho de vel ops
r ea so nab l e su sp i ci on t hat an occ upa nt of t he veh i cl e i s eng age d i n, orw i l l s oon eng agei n, cr i m i nalac t i vi t y m ay con t i nue t he det ent i on of t he occ upa nt s oft he17

veh i cl e t o i nve st i gat e c r i m i na l ac t i vi t y be yond t he sc opeoft he l aw vi ol at i on th a t fo rm e d th e b a s i so f th e i n i ti a l s to p . Si m sv. Sta te , 9 8 S .W .3 d 292, 2 9 5

– 9 6 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. re f’d ); E stradav. S tate , 30 S .W .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 3 (T e x . A p p .— A u s t in 2 0 0 0 , p e t . r e f ’d ). T h e t e s tf o rre a s o n a b le
su sp i ci on i s st i l l a f ac t ualonean d i s m a d e an d r evi ew ed by c ons i der i ng t he to ta l i tyo f th e c i rc u m s ta n c e sa t th e ti m e o f th e s to p . L o eschv. S tate , 958 S. W . 2d 830, 832 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1997 ) . Rea so nab l e s us pi ci on e xi st s i ft he of f i cerhas speci f i c, art i cul abl e f act s t hat , w hen com bi ned w i t h r at i onal i n fere n c e s from tho se fac ts, w o u l d l e a d h i m to re a so n a b ly s u s p e c t t h a t a p a rti c u l a r p e rs o n h a s , i s , o r s o o n w i l l b e e n g a g e d i n i l l e g a l c o n d u c t. Garci a v. S tate , 43 S. W . 3d 527, 530 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 200 1) . A ft er m ak i ng a st op f or a t r af f i c v i ol at i on, an offi c e r m ay r el y on al l t he f ac t s as ce rt ai ned dur i ng t he
c o u r s e o fh is c o n t a c tw it h a d e t a in e e t o d e v e lo p a rt ic u la b le f a c t st h a tw o u ld j u s ti fya c o n ti n u e d d e te n ti o n . Po wel l v. S tate , 5 S. W . 3d 369 , 377 (T e x. A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 1 9 9 9 , p e t . re f’d ), cert. denied, 5 2 9 U .S . 1 1 1 6 (2 0 0 0 ). Furt her , i n f or m in g r easonabl e suspi ci on t o j ust i f y a cont i nued det ent i on, an o ffice r m a y d ra w o n h i stra i n i n g a n d e x p e ri e n c e . Es trada , 30 S . W . 3d a t603; see United S tates v. Cortez , 4 4 9 U .S . 4 1 1 , 4 2 1 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 6 9 0 , 6 9 7 (1 9 8 1 ). In th i sc a s e , M e e k s t e s t i fi e d th a t w h a t o ri g i n a l l yb ro u g h t A p p e l l a n t’s vehi cl e t o hi s at t ent i on w as i t s w eavi ng w i t hi n i t s l ane. M eeks sai d t hatw hen18

he w asatt em pt i ng t o pul l A ppe l l antove rf ort he se atbe l ti nf r ac t i on, A ppe l l ant di d not i ni t i al l y st op w hen M eeks act i vat ed hi s over head l i ghts , and on ce M eeks
ac t i vat ed hi s si r en, A ppe l l ant p u l l e d o vert o t he sh oul der , ba ckon t o t he h i g h w a y , th e n u l ti m a te l yb a c k o n to th e s h o u l d e r. F u rth e r, d u ri n g A p p e l l a n t’s del ay i n st opp i ng, M eeks sai d t hathe obse rved— and t he vi deo
con f i r m s— f urt i ve m ove m e n ts b y t he pas se nge rt ow ar d t he ce nt eroft he vehi cl e. A ddi t i onal l y, w hen M eeks t ol d A ppel l antt o st ep ou t o f th e vehi cl e, A p p e l l a n t c o u l d n o t fo l l o w th e s i m p l e c o m m a n d o f k e e p i n g h i sh a n d si n M e e k s ’s
s ig h t . T h e v id e o c o n f ir m st h a tM e e k st o ld A p p e lla n tf o u rt i m e s t o k e e p h is h a n d s v i s i b l e p ri o r to M e e k sh a n d c u ffin g A p p e l l a n t. V i ew i ng t hi s evi dence i n a l i ght m ost f avor abl e t o t he t r i al court ’ s deni al ofA ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s, w e h o l d t hatunde rt he t ot al i t y of ci r cum st anc esM ee ksha d r ea so nab l e su sp i ci on t o c ont i nuet o de t ai n Appel l ant t o i nve st i gat e w het herA ppe l l antw asen gag ed i n, orw oul d s oon e nga ge i n, cr i m i nalac t i vi t y e ven t hough i tw as bey ond t he sc opeoft he se atbe l ti nf r ac t i onW e n o te th a t t h e re a re o th e r fac to rs i n th i s c a se tha t M e e k s te sti fi e d to 10 t hatoccur r ed af t erM eeks handcuff ed A ppel l ant th atw oul d have j ust i f i ed M e e k s in h a v in g a re a s o n a b les u s p ic io n to fu rt h e r in v e s tig a te A p p e ll a n t f o r D W I. S e e Rub e ckv. S tate , 61 S. W . 3d 741 , 745 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2001, no pet . ) ( op. on r eh’ g) ( hol di ng t hats l ur r ed sp ee ch and t he st r ong s m el l ofal coh ol o n the ap p e l l a n t’ s b rea th g a v e su ffi c i e n t r e a so n a b le su sp i c i o n to i n v e sti g a te D W I a f t e rin it ia l s t o p f o r t r a f f ic v io la t io n ). H o w e v e r , A p p e lla n th a slim it e d h is ar gum entt o w hathede em s “c us t odi alac t i vi t y”by M ee ksan d t he i m pr es si on M eeks gave A ppel l ant“t hathe w as underar r est . ” 19 t hatf or m ed t he bas i s oft he i ni t i als t op. S e eSi ms , 98 S . W . 3d a t295– 96. 10 W e f u rt h e rh o ld t h a tM e e k s ’s h a n d c u f f in g o fA p p e lla n tw a sju s t if ie d b yh is
a t t em pts t o eff ec t i ve l y prov i de f or hi s ow n safety w hi l e he i nv esti ga t e d t h is
s u s p i c i o n . S ee Rh odes , 945 S . W . 2d at117. W e o ver r ul e th i s port i on of A p p e l l a n t’sfi rs t p o i n t.

c . T h eW i n eC o o l e rs In th e re m a i n d e r o f h i sfi rs t p o i n t, A p p e l l a n t a rg u e sth a t th e w i n e c o o l e rs th a t w e re fo u n d i n h i sv e h i c l e a n d th e p o rti o n o f th e v i d e o d i s p l a y i n g M e e k s ’s d i sc o v e ry o f t h e m sh o u l d h a v e b e e n su p p res se d b e c a u se the yw e re th e res u l ts
o fa n ille g a l s e a r c h . H o w e v e r , w e h o ld t h a t t h e w in e c o o le r sw e r e la w f u lly
o b ta i n e d u n d e r th e p l a i n v i e w d o c tri n e a n d th a t M e e k s ’sd i s c o v e rya n d s e i z u re oft hem di d not i nvoke A ppel l ant ’ s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om unr easonabl e sear ches
a n d s e i z u re s .20

T h e p l a i n v i e w d o c tri n e i n v o l v e sn o i n v a s i o n o f p ri v a c y . See Texasv. Bro wn , 4 6 0 U .S . 7 3 0 , 7 3 8

– 3 9 , 1 0 3 S . C t . 1 5 3 5 , 1 5 4 1 (1 9 8 3 ); W alter v. S tate , 28 S. W . 3d 53 8, 54 1 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 00 ) . I fan i t em i s i n pl ai n vi ew , n e i th e r i ts o b s e rv a ti o n n o r i ts s e i z u re i n v o l v e sa n yi n v a s i o n o f p ri v a c y . W alter, 2 8 S . W . 3 d at 5 4 1 . T he r ati on al e of t he pl ai n vi ew do ctr i ne i s t h a tif
con t r aba nd i s l efti n ope n vi ew an d i s obs erved by a p ol i ceof f i ce rf r om a l aw f ul vant age poi nt , t her e has been no i nvasi on of a l egi t i m at e expect at i on of pr i vacy a n d th u s n o “ s e a rc h ” w i th i n th e m e a n i n g o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. S e eIllin o is
v. A ndreas , 4 6 3 U .S . 7 6 5 , 7 7 1 , 1 0 3 S . C t . 3 3 1 9 , 3 3 2 4( 1 9 8 3 ) . “ T h e p la in vi ew s ei z ur e d oct r i ne r equ i r esa t w o- pr ong s how i ng: ( 1) t hatl aw en f or ce m ent of f i ci al s se e a n i t em i n pl ai n vi ew ata van t agepoi ntw her e t heyha ve t he r i ght t o be, and ( 2) i ti s i m m edi at el y a p p a re n t t hatt he i t em sei zed const i t ut es evi de n ce— t hati s, t her e i s pr obab l e cause t o associ at e t he i t em w i t h cr i m i nal act i vi t y. ” Ma rti

n ez v. S tate , 17 S . W . 3d 677, 685 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2000 ) ( citi ngRam osv. Sta te , 9 3 4S .W .2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ), c ert. denied, 5 2 0 U .S . 1 1 9 8 (1 9 9 7 )). A l so, a per son com m its a n of f ense i fhe know i ngl y possessesan open contai nerofan al coho l i c bever age i n a passenger ar ea of a m ot orvehi cl e t hat i s l oca t ed on a publ i c h i ghw ay. Tex . P e n a l C o d e Ann. § 49. 031 ( a) ( 1) , ( b) (V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 ). “ P a s s e n g e r a r e a ” isd e f in e d a st h e a r e a o fa m o t o rv e h ic le21

d e s i g n e d fo r th e s e a ti n g o f th e o p e ra to r a n d p a s s e n g e rso f th e v e h i c l e . Id. § 4 9 .0 3 1 (a )(2 ). H er e, A ppe l l antw ass t oppe d w hi l e d r i vi ng on a p u b l i c h i ghw ay. The vi deo cl ea r l y s how s t hatw hen t he pas se nge rex i t ed t he veh i cl e , s h e l eftt he pas se ng e r d o o r o p e n . Me e k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a s h e a p p r o a c h e d t h e v e h i c l e he
saw t he “t w o w i ne cool er s si t t i ng r i ght i n t he cent eroft he seat s. ” The vi deo show s hi m si m pl y l ean i nsi de t he vehi cl e, pul l outt he t w o bott l es, pl ace t hem on t he r oof oft he vehi cl e, and t hen— a br i efm om entl at er — t ake bot h bott l es and pourl i qui d f r om t hem i nt o t he di t ch. Eve n i fM ee ksha d notar r es t ed A p p el l antf orD W I , heco ul d notha ve per m i t t ed A ppe l l antt o dr i ve aw ay w i t h t w o ope n con t ai ner s of al coh ol i ns i de t he vehi cl e; A ppel l antw oul d ( agai n) be i n vi ol at i on of t he open cont ai nerl aw . S ee i d. § 49. 031 ( a) ( 1) , ( b) Ther ef or e, M ee ksha d a r i ghtt o r ea ch i ns i de A ppe l l ant ’ s veh i cl e i n or der t o se i z e evi den ce t hat w as i n pl ai n vi ew i n vi ol at i on o f t h e o p e n co n tai n e r l a w . W e o v e rr u l ethe rem a i n d e r of A p p e l l a n t’ s fi rst po i n t. B. A ppe l l ant ’ s Reque st ed Jury I ns t r uct i on I n hi s se con d poi nt , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by d eny i ng hi s r equest ed j ur y i nst r uct i on. H e cont ends t hathi s r equest ed char ge addr essed t he f ac t ual bas i s f or t he l egi t i m ac y ofM ee ks ’ s st op a nd f urt herde t ent i on a nd, t her ef or e, A ppel l antw a s deni ed hi s r i ght t o have t he j ur y m ake a f act ualA p p e l l a n t d o e sn o t i d e n ti fy u n d e r w h i c h s ta tu te h e w a se n ti tl e d a j u ry 11 in s t r u c t io n , b u t h e d o e sre f e r e n c e T e x a sC o d e o fC r im in a l P r o c e d u r e a rt ic le 3 6 .1 3 . S eeTe x. C o d e C ri m . Pr oc . Ann . a rt . 36. 13 ( Ver no n Sup p. 2008 ) ( “Unl es s ot her w i sepr ovi ded i n t hi s C ode , t he j ury i s t he exc l us i ve j udgeoft he f act s, buti ti s bound t o r e c e iv e th e law f r om t he courtand be go ver ned t her eby . ”) . I n Madden , t he cou rtofcr i m i nalap pea l s add r es se d w hen a de f e nda n t h a s a s t a t ut ory r i gh tt o a j ury i ns t r uc t i on u nd e ra rt i c l e 38. 23. Ma dden, 242 S . W . 3d 504, 510 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2007 ) ;see T e x . C o d e C r i m. P ro c . A n n . a rt. 3 8 .2 3 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 22 f i ndi ng. The St at e c ount er s t hatt her e w asno m at er i alf ac ti ss ue con ce r ni ng th e l a w fu l n e s so f M e e k s ’ss to p . W e a g re e w i th th e S ta te . I n Ma ddenv. S ta te, t he cou rtofcr i m i n a l a ppe al s add r es se d t he
re q u i re m e n ts th a t a d e fe n d a n t m u s t m e e t b e fo re b e i n g e n t i tl e d to a j u ry i n s tru c ti o n c o n c e rn i n g d i s p u te d i s s u e so f fa c t th a t a re m a te ri a l to a d e fe n d a n t’s cl ai m ofa const i t ut i onal orst at ut or y vi ol at i on t hatw oul d r enderevi dence i na dm i s s i bl e . 242 S. W . 3d a t 5 0 9

– 1 0 . T h e re a re th ree req u i rem e n ts th a t a 11 d e fe n d a n t m u s t m e e t b e fo re h e i se n ti tl e d to th e s u b m i s s i o n o f a j u ry i nst r uct i on un derart i cl e 38 . 23 ( a) : ( 1) t he evi dence hear d by t he j ur y m ustr ai se an i ss ue of f ac t ; ( 2) t he evi den ce on t hatf ac tm us tbeaf f i r m at i vel y c ont es t ed; and ( 3) t he con t es t ed f ac t uali ss ue m us tbem at eri a l t o t he l aw f ul nes s oft he
c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t i n o b ta i n i n g th e e v i d e n c e . Id. ;see 40 G eor ge E. D i x & R o b e rt O . D a w s o n , C ri m i n a l P ra c ti c e a n d P ro c e d u re § 4 .1 9 4(2 d e d . 2 0 0 1 ); see al so Mer r iweather

v. State, 501 S. W . 2d 887, 891 ( Te x. Cr i m . A pp . 1973 )23

( hol di ng t hatw hen t he sp ec i f i c f ac t s us ed by t he cou rtt o de t er m i ne t he exi st ence ofpr obab l e cause w er e uncon t est ed, t he def endan tw as notent i t l ed t o a ju ryin s t r u c t io n c o n c e r n i n g o t h e rf a c t s — w h ic h w e r e c o n t e s t e d

— t h a td id
n o t d e fe a t th e fi n d i n g o f p ro b a b l e c a u s e ). I n t hi s ca se , A ppe l l antw asnoten t i t l ed t o hi s r equ es t ed i ns t r uct i on bec aus e t he i ns t r uct i on di d notas k t he j ury t o de ci de a di sp ut ed i ss ue of h i s to ri c a l fa c t— th e f i rs t re q u i re m e n t u n d e r Madden . 242 S. W . 3d a t 5 1 0 . It asked t he j ur y t o deci de a quest i on of l aw — w het her t he S t at e had pr oved that M e e k s ’sc o n d u c t w a sn o t i n v i o l a ti o n o f A p p e l l a n t’sc o n s ti tu ti o n a l o r s ta tu to ry ri g h ts to b e fre e fro m u n re a s o n a b l e s e a rc h e sa n d s e i z u re s . I n Madden , t he def end antr equ es t ed t hatan i ns t r uct i on bei ncl ude d i n t he j u ry c h a rge as k i n g w h e th e r t h e arres ti n g o ffi c e r h a d “re a so n a b l e su sp i c i o n ” to d e ta i n th e d e fe n d a n t. Id. Th e court of cr i m i nal appeal s hel d t hat i ti s t he “t r i al j u d g e w h o d e c i d e s w h a t qu a l i ty a n d q u a n tu m o f f a c ts a re n e c e s s a ry to est abl i sh ‘ r easonabl e suspi ci on. ’ ” Id. a t511 . T h e c o u rt re a s o n e d th a t a j u ry “c ann otbe exp ec t ed t o dec i de w het her t he t ot al i t y of ce rt ai n f ac t s do ordo n ot const i t ut e ‘ r easonabl e suspi ci on’ undert he l aw . ” Id. H er e, j us tasi n Madden , A p p e l l a n t’s re q u e s te d i n s tru c ti o n a s k e d th e j u ry t o de c i d e th e l ega l que st i on ofw het hert he “s t at e h as[ pr ove d] be yond a
r e a s o n a b le d o u b tt h a ta n yin v e s t ig a t iv e d e t e n t io n a n d / o r a r r e s tw a sn o tin24

v i o l a ti o n o f th e d e fe n d a n t’sc o n s ti tu ti o n a l o r C o d e o f C ri m i n a l P ro c e d u re p ro te c ti o n s .” W e h o l d th a t A p p e l l a n t w a sn o t e n ti tl e d to h i sre q u e s te d j u ry i nst r uct i on becau se t her e w as no conf l i ct i n t he evi dence t hatr ai sed a di sput ed f ac ti ss ue m at er i alt o t he l ega l que st i on o f w het herM ee ksco ul d s t op or conti nue t o det ai n A ppel l ant and because A ppel l ant ’ s r equest ed i nst r uct i on w as a s k i n g th e j u ryto m a k e a l e g a l d e te rm i n a ti o n . See i d. a t5 1 0 . W e o v e r r u le A p p e l l a n t’ss e c o n d i s s u e . C . Fact ualSu ff i ci ency In h is t h i r d p o in t , A p p e lla n ta r g u e st h a tt h e e v id e n c e w a sf a c t u a lly i n s u fficie n t to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t th a t h e w a si n to x i c a te d .

1. S t andar d ofRev i ew W h e n rev i e w i n g the fac tu a l su f f ic ie n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to s u p p o rta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n a ne ut r all i ght , f avo r i ng ne i t herpa rty. W a tso nv. S tate , 2 0 4S .W .3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); D r i cha s v. S tate , 17 5 S . W . 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 05 ) . W e t hen ask w het her t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n , a lt h o u g h le g a llys u f f ic ie n t , is
nev ert hel es s so w ea k t hat t he f ac t - f i nde r ’ s det er m i nat i on i s cl ea r l y w r ong a nd
m ani f es t l y u n j u s t orw het herco nf l i ct i ng e vi den ces o gr ea t l y ou t w ei ghst he
e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e c o n v ic t io n t h a t t h e f a c t -f in d e r ’s d e t e r m in a t io n is
m a n i fe s tl y u n j u s t. W atson , 2 0 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 1 4

– 1 5 , 4 1 7 ; Jo hn so nv. S tate , 2325

S. W . 3d 1, 11 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2000 ) . To r eve r seunde rt he se con d gr ound,
w e m ustdet er m i ne, w i t h som e obj ect i ve basi s i n t he r ecor d, t hatt he gr eat
w e i g h t an d p rep o n d e ran c e o f al l the ev i d e n c e , th o u g h le g a l l ysu ffi c i e n t,
c o n tra d i c ts th e v e rd i c t. W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t417. I n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r th e e v i d e n c e i s fac tu a l l y i n su ffi c i e n t to su p p o rta con vi ct i on t hati s nev ert hel es s su pport ed by l ega l l y s uf f i ci entev i den ce , i ti s not
e n o u g h t h a t t h i s c o u rt“h a rbo r a su bj e c ti v e l e v e l o f r e a so n a b l e d o u b t t o overt ur n [ t he] convi ct i on. ” Id . W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e t h a ta c o n v ic t io n isc le a r ly
w r o n g o rm a n if e s t ly u n ju s t s im p ly b e c a u s e w e w o u ld h a v e d e c id e d d if f e r e n t ly t h a n t h e ju ry o r b e c a u s e w e d is a g r e e w it h t h e ju ry ’s re s o lu t io n o fa c o n f lic tin th e e v i d e n c e . Id . W e m a y n o t s im p l ysu b sti tu te o u r j u d g m e n t f o r t h e fac tfi n d e r’s . Johnson , 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 ; Cai n v. State , 9 5 8 S . W . 2d 404, 407 (T e x . C r im . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ). U n le s s t h e r e c o r d c le a r ly r e v e a ls t h a t a d if f e r e n tre s u lt i s app r opr i at e, w e m us tde f ert o t he j ury’ s det er m i nat i on of th e w e i ghtt o be gi ven con t r adi ct or y t est i m o n ia l e vi dence becau se r esol ut i on of t he confl i ct

“ o fte n tu rn so n a n e v a l u a ti o n o f c re d i b i l i tya n d d e m e a n o r, a n d th o s e j u ro rsw e re i n at t endan ce w hen t he t est i m ony w as del i ver ed. ” Johnson , 23 S . W . 3d a t8. T h us, w e m ustgi ve due defer ence t o t he f act - f i nder ’ s det er m i nat i ons, “p art i cul ar l y t hos e d et er m i nat i onsco nce r ni ng t he w ei ght and cr edi bi l i t y oft he evi dence. ” Id . at 9. A n opi ni on addr essi ng f act ual suf f i ci ency m usti ncl ude a26

di sc us s i o n oft he m os ti m port antan d r el eva ntev i den cet hats upport s t he
a p p e l l a n t’sc o m p l a i n t o n a p p e a l . Si m s v. S tate , 99 S. W .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 3 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ).

2. Evi den ceofA ppe l l ant ’ s I nt oxi ca t i on A pe r so n c om m i t s t he of f ens e o fdr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi ca t ed i fh e o rs he ope r at esa m ot orve hi cl e i n a publ i c pl ac e w i t hout t he nor m al us e o fm ent al or phys i ca l f ac ul t i esduet o t he i nt r oduc t i on of al coh ol or ot her su bs t anc es i nt o t he b o d y . Tex . Pen alCode Ann. § § 4 9 . 0 1 ( 2 ) ( A) , 4 9 . 0 4 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 3 ) . The
cor pusde l i ct iofdr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi ca t ed i s t hats om eon e d r oveorope r at ed a
m o to r v e h i c l e i n a p u b l i c p l a c e w h i l e i n to x i c a te d . T h ree t v. S tate , 15 7 Tex. C ri m . 4 9 7 , 4 9 8 , 2 5 0 S .W .2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 0 (1 9 5 2 ). H e r e , A p p e l l a n tc o n t e n d st h a t“ [ n ] e i t h e rt h e d r i v i n g b e h a v i o ro ft he A ppe l l antasde sc r i bed by t he t r oope r. . . nort he obs ervat i onsoft he A ppe l l ant
o n . . . th e v i d e o ta p e c o rro b o ra te sth e tro o p e r’sc o n c l u s i o n so f i n to x i c a ti o n .” H o w e v e r , t h e re c o r d c o n t a in sp le n t yo fe v id e n c e f r o m w h ic h t h e ju ryc o u ld hav e f ound bey ond a r ea so nab l e d oubtt hatA p p e l l a n tw asi nt oxi ca t ed. The evi dence i ndi cat i ng i nt oxi cat i on i ncl uded M eeks’ s t est i m ony thatA ppel l antw as
w ea vi ng a s h e d r ove , f ai l ed t o i m m edi at el y pu l l ove rf orM ee ks , an d f ai l ed a
n u m b e r o f fi e l d -s o b ri e ty te s ts . S ee Ha rtm a nv. S tate , 198 S. W . 3d 829, 834 ( Tex . A pp. — C or pus C hr i st i20 06 , pet . di sm ’ d) ( hol di ng th a tt est i m ony o fan27

of f i ce rt hata per so n i s i nt oxi ca t ed pr ovi des su f f i ci ent evi den ce t o e st abl i sh t he el em entofi nt oxi ca t i on) . Fu rt her , t her e i s evi den cei n t he r ec or d t hatA ppe l l ant had t he i nab i l i t y t o f ol l ow t he com m and s t o ke ep hi s han dsi n s i ght , A ppe l l ant
w as unabl e t o answ erquest i o ns concer ni ng t he w her eabou t s ofhi s l i cense, ope n c ont ai ner s ofal coh ol w e re pr es enti n Appel l ant ’ s veh i cl e a tt he t i m e h e
w ass t oppe d, t her e w as a r epo rtt hatA ppe l l antha d be en dr i vi ng e r r at i ca l l y pr i or to M e e k s s to p p i n g h i m , a n d A p p e l l a n t re fu s e d to s u b m i t to a b re a th te s t. S ee i d. ( r ea so ni ng t hata j ury m ay con si dera def end ant ’ s r ef u s a l to s u b m i tt o a b re a th te s t a se v i d e n c e o f d ri v i n g w h i l e i n to x i c a te d ). The on l y e vi den ceco nt r ary t o i nt oxi ca t i on w as A ppe l l ant ’ s t es t i m ony and t he t est i m ony o f hi s f r i ends t hat on t he ni ght i n quest i on he had onl y consum ed atm os tonem ar gar i t a a nd t hathew asch os en t o dr i ve t he pas se nge rhom e b e c a u se the p a ss e n g e r w a s i n to x i c a ted b u t he w a s n o t. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n a neutr al l i ght, w e concl ude t hat t h e e vi dence
s u p p o rt in g t h e v e r d ic tisn o tt o o w e a k t o s u p p o rtt h e ju ry ’s f in d in g o fg u ilt bey ond a r ea so nab l e d oubt . Nori s t he w ei ghtoft he evi den ceco nt r ary t o t he
v e rd i c t s o s tro n g th a t th e S ta t e c o u l d n o t h a v e m e t i ts b u rd e n o f p ro o f. S ee W atson , 204 S. W . 3d a t414– 15, 417 . W e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e e v id e n c e is fa c tu a l l y s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt th e v e rd i c t, a n d w e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t ’ s t h i rd p o i n t.28

I V . C onc l us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed e a c h ofA ppel l ant ’ s t hr ee poi nt s, w e af f i r m t he t r i al
c o u rt’sj u d g m e n t.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: HO LM A N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r2, 2008