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

NO. 03-05-00800- CR

Ear l Jo hnny B aug h, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-05 -20 1186 , HO NORAB LE JULIE H. K OCUREK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
After the district court de nied his motion to suppr ess evidenc e, appellant Ea rl J ohnny Ba ug h plead guilty

to the offe nse of unlaw ful possession of a firea rm by a fe lon and was se ntence d to three y ear s’ conf

inement. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 46.04(a) (West Supp. 2005). I n one issue, B a ug h c on te nd s th a t th e c ourt e rr e d in de nying his mot ion

to s up pr e ss e vid e nc e of

the g un a s f ru it of an unc onstitut ional seizure. See U. S. Co ns t., Am e nd . I V; Te x. Con st. art . I , § 9; T e x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a

rt . 1 4. 03 (We st Su

pp . 2 00 5) , a

rt s. 18 .0 1, 38 .2 3( a ) ( Wes t 20 05 ). We a ff ir m.
BACK GR OUND Ba u g h ’ s mo ti o n to s u

p p r e s s a ll e g e d th a t h e w a s w a lk in g u p th e dr iveway

to a residenc e when he wa s detained by an Austin police off

icer . Whil e attempting to run from the
o ff i ce r, Bau gh t h re w h i s gu no v er t h e f en ce o f a n ea rb y re s i d en ce . He wa s t h en ap p re h en d ed
. Bau gh2

argue s th a t hi s c on sti tut ion a l and statut or y ri g hts we re vio la te d b e c a

us e the of fi c e r h a d n o r e a so na

ble suspicion to justify the detention and beca use the seizure of

the fire arm wa s outside the scope of any justified searc h.

Tw o w itn e sse s te sti fi e d at the Au g us t 15, 200 5 sup pr e ssi on he ari ng : Tra vis County Sheriff’ s Deputy

Don Xavier Rios and Ba

ug h. Rios stated that he was part of a team executing anoknock sea

rch w arr ant i n t h e p re-dawn hour s of Marc h 9, 2005, at the re sidence of a suspe cted
narc otics deale r. The e x ecution of the war rant wa s considere d a hig h-risk si t u at i o n d u e to the criminal histories of the oc cupants, the e x pectation that t hey wer e ar med, and the pr esenc e of surveillance equipment on the exterior of the residenc e. Rios rec all ed that three unmarke d police
ve hic le s w e re pa

rk e d in fr on t of the ho us e , alo ng wi th a l arg e “ SWAT va n. ” Rio s w a s st and ingin the sh a do ws of the dr ive wa y a t the fr on t of the re sid e nc e to pr ov ide se c ur ity and surv e ill anc e wh ile the team wa s inside the house.

As Rios was keepingsurveillance , he obser ved B aug h parking his car and
a pp ro a c hin g the targ e t hous e . Rio s sta te d tha t he ste pp e d out fr om the sh a do ws , il lum inate d h ims e lf with his flashlight and sa id, “Deputy Rios with t he Tra

vis County

Sheriff’ s Offic e. Where a re you go i n g? ” B au gh t o l d

R i o s t h at h e w as t h er e t o v i s i th i s co u s i n an d b ega nwa l k i n g aw ay . W h en Bau gh continued wa lking, de spite multi ple commands to stop, Rios called for ba ckup and drew his M16
a s s a u l tr i f l e f r o m a s l i n g a th i s s i d e . R i o s s t a t e d t h a tB a u g h b e g ant o m o v e aw ay m o r e qu i c k l y, jogg ing along the s ide of the hous e, where Rios saw him throw a small blac k object over the fe nce into an adjac ent y ard. A fter thr owing the object, B aug h heede d Rios’s co m m an d to stop and was detained. O ffice rs sea

rche d the neig h b o ri n g y ard and locate d a 9mm Smit h & Wesson handgun, which wa s loaded a

nd had a r ound in the chambe r.The c ourt did not issue written finding s of fa ct, nor we re a ny reque sted. 1 3 Ba ug h testified that he ha d g one to the residenc e in the pre- dawn hour s to “pick up some money

that he [the homeowner ] owed me for a car Ihad boug ht from him.” B aug h claimed t h at R i o s ra i s edh i s we ap o nas s o o nas h e s t ep p edo u tfr o m t h e s h ad o ws i nt h e d ri v ew ay . Bau gh stated that while he was walking awa y , he put his hands up in c ompliance with R i o s ’s co m m and. But B aug h admitted that he did not obey Rios’ s co m mand to “g et on the g round.” When Rios lowere d his weapon, Ba u gh , wh o h ad bee n car rying a g un, ran towa

rd the side of

the house a

nd threw the g un over a

fenc e. B aug h testified that Rios could not have see n him throw the g un. At a subseque nt hear ing on Aug ust 29, 2005, t h e d istrict court denie d Ba ug h’s motion to suppress. The court stated on the record that, “conside ring it was 5:00 in the morning [and] there 1
was a n individual that was approa ching a house wher e they wer e ex ecuting a narcotics wa rra nt,” the office r “had ever

y rig ht to stop a

nd question the person that was appr oachingthat house.” The court also found that “B aug h was ne ver se ized” beca use “he appea

rs to have sta

rted immediately

wa lk ing.” Pur su ant t o a ne g oti a te d ple a of g uil ty , on Oc tob e r 19 , 20 05 , B a ug h w a s c on vic te d o f “ int e nti on a lly or knowing ly

possessing a firea

rm befor e the f

ifth anniversa

ry of his rele ase f

rom confine ment for conviction of a felony ” and sentenc ed to three y ear s’ confinement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 46.04 (West Supp. 2005). This appeal followe d.
DI SCU SSIO N Ba ug h asser ts that the trial court err ed in de ny ing his motion to su p p re s s evidenc e beca use t he gun was obtained as the result of a n unconstitutional seiz ure. H e spec ifically argues that4

he thre w the g un over the fenc e only afte r he ha d been se ized and that his abandonment of the g un
wa s th e pr od

uc t of po lic e mis c on du c t.
Stand ard of review

We a pp ly a bif ur c a te d sta

nd ard wh e n re vie wi nga

tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin g on

a mot ion to
su pp re ss e vid e nc e , g ivi ng “ a lmo st tota l def e re nc e to a

tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n o f h ist or ic a l f a c ts, espec ially when the f

indings a re based on an evaluation of credibility and deme anor, a

nd revie wing de novo the court’s application of the l aw of sear ch and se izure.” Car mo uc he v . S

tat e , 10 S.W .3d 32 3, 32 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p 2 00 0) ; G uzm an v . Stat e , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Apply ing the se standar ds, we will defe r to the district co u rt ’s fa ct finding s but determine de novo whether the fa cts found by

the cour t establish that Ba

ug h was seized bef

ore he threw the g un over the fe nce.
Unconstitutional s eizure

B a ug h c on te nd s th a t a

se izur e oc c ur

re d w he n Ri os ra ise d h is weap on , b e c a us e brandishing a we apon is “tantamount to the use of forc e.” A lternatively , Ba ug h asser ts that a seizure
occur red w hen he r aised his hands in submission to Rios’s show of authority . Ba ug h argues that he did not abandon his g un until after his seizure by the offic er. Evidence obtained as the fruit of an unconstitutional seizure is inadmissibl e. Mapp
v . O hio , 367 U.S. 643, 654-55 (1961); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 38.23( a) ( West 2005). But proper ty that is a

bandoned befor e a seizure occur s is a dmissibl e. See California v. Hodari D. , 499 U. S. 6 21 , 6 29 (1 99 1) (h oldi ng th a t c oc a ine a ba nd on e d w hil e de fe nd ant w a s r un nin g wa s n ot f

ru it of seizure be cause defe ndant was not seized until he was subse quent l y t ac k l ed by office r). To be5

e nti tle d to supp re ss ev ide nc e of the g un , B a

ug h mu st s ho w that th e of fi c e rs ob ta ine d it

a s th e re su lt of an unc onstitut ional seizure. See id. I f t he g un wa s a ba nd on e d b e fo re any

se izure occurr e d, it should not be suppressed.

When a def

endant se eks to suppress e vidence on the basis of a n unconst i t utional seizure, he ha s the initial burden of defe ating the pre sumption of proper police conduct. Russell v. Sta te , 717 S.W .2d 7, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). The def endant satisfies this ini tial burden of pr oof b y e s ta b li s h in g th a t: ( 1 ) a s e iz u r e o c c u r r e d an d ( 2 ) n o w ar

r an t w a s o b ta in e d. Id
. On l y i f the defe ndant establishes both of these fac ts d o es t he burde n shift to the State to prove the
rea sonablene ss of its actions. Id. a t 9- 10 ; He rn an de z v . S tat e , 963 S.W .2d 921, 924 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref

’d). Her e, i t i s undisputed that no warr ant was obta ined for B aug h. Acc ording ly , the only

question is whether a

seizure occ urre d befor e B aug h abandone d the g un. Un de r t he fe de ra l and

state c on sti tut ion s, a se izur e may oc c ur in e ith e r o f t wo wa y s: (1) whe n a person is subjected to phy sical force, however slight, or (2) when a person submi ts to a show of author ity
. See H

odari D. , 4 99 U. S. at 62 4- 26 ; J oh ns on v . S

tat e , 9 1 2 S. W. 2 d

2 2 7 , 2 3 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1995). A “show o f au t h o ri t y ” occ urs when the actions of the police would cause a
r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n to b e li e v e th a t h e o r s h e is n o t f r e e to leave
. S

ee Hodari D. , 499 U.S. at 628. Significa ntly , a seizure of

a citizen does not oc cur until the citizen “has y ielded to the off

icer ’s show of authority

or bee n phy sically

forc ed to yield.” Johnson , 9 1 2 S
. W
. 2 d a t 2 3 6
. “ A s h o w o f a u t h o r i t y, without an application of phy sical force, to which a suspect does not y ield, is not a seizure under the Four th Amendment.” Id
.

Thoug h Rios and Ba

ug h g ave dif

fer ing te stimony , we c o n clude that, under either
v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s , n o s e i z u r e o c c u rr e d u nti l after Ba ug h abandone d his gun. B oth testified that6

Ba ug h b egan w alking awa

y from Rios upon seeing him, and Ba ug h did not heed the of

fice r’s command to stop until af ter Ba ug h had thrown the g un over the fenc e. Eve n if we c redit B aug h’s testimony that he ra ised his hands in submissi on, Ba ug h did not simply y ield; he ran. Ba ug h did not voluntarily

y ield to Rios’s show of authority , and B aug h was not phy sically forc ed to yield by any of Rios’s actions. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that Baug h was not seized until after he threw his g un over the fenc e.
P olice m iscondu ct

Be cause we c onclude that no se izure occur red until afte r B aug h abandone d his gun, Ba ug h has not met his initi al burde n of def eatingthe pre sump t i o n o f p ro p er police conduct. See Ru sse ll , 7 17 S.W. 2d a t 9. Ab se nt t hat sh ow ing , th e State is n ot r e qu ir e d to pr ov e the re a so na ble ne ss of its actions. See id. , 7 17 S.W. 2d a t 9- 10 ; Hernande

z , 963 S.W .2d at 924.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled B aug h’s sole issue on appe al, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s jud g me nt.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: August 11, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh