1De ric hs we ile r v . S tate , 301 S.W .3d 803 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2009). 

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

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0176- 10

M A R K D ER I C H SW EILE R , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

DENTO N CO UNTY P RI CE , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , K EASLE R , H ERVEY and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P .J ., fi le d a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . M E YE RS , J ., fi le d a d is s e n ti n g o p in io n . J OHNS ON , J. , di s s e nt e d. O P I N I O N O vera di s s ent , a pane l of t he For t W or t h C ou rt o f A ppeal s i n t hi s cas e hel d t hat

r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n wa s l a c k i n g t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t wa s a b o u t t o c o mmi t a c r i me
w hen t he pol i ce de t ai ned hi m fori nves t i gat i ve purpos es . T he cour t of appe al s hel d t hatt he 1

a p p e llan t’s b e h a v io r, w h ile a d m itt e d lyo d d , d id n o t p ro v id e a sp e c if ic, a rticu lab le b a sis toDerichsweiler — 2 b eli ev e t h at h e w as en g ag ed in or co n tem p lat ing crim inal ac ti v ity . W e gra n ted t h e S ta te’s p eti ti o n fo r discre ti o n aryrev iew to ad d ress w h ethe r t h e c o u rto f a p p e a ls e rred to req u ir e
som e i nd i cat i on of a sp eci fi c cri m i nal offense as a ne cessar ycom po nen t of rea so n a b le suspi ci on . W e w i l l rever se t he judgm ent of t he co urtof ap peals
.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL P OS TU RE

I n t he T ri al C ourt T he appe l l antw as i ndi ct ed for fel ony dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed. A t t he puni s hm ent phas e of t r i al , t he j ur y found t hat he had t w i ce befor e bee n convi ct ed of a fel onyand as s es s ed hi s puni s hm entatfor t y - s even y ear s i n t he peni t enti ary . P ri or t o t r i al , t he appe l l antfi l ed a

m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned a s a p rod u ct of hi s ar r es t , w hi ch occ ur r ed i n t he p a rk in g lo t o f

a W a l-M a rt in L e w isv il le
. H e c laim e d th a t th e p o lice lac k e d re a so n a b le

s us pi ci on i nit ial ly to d et ai n hi m , w hi ch r ender ed anypr oductof hi s s ubs equentar r es t for D W I i nadmi s s i bl e. T he par t i es adduce d evi dence r el evantt o t he l egal i t yof t he det ent i on dur i ng bot h a pr e- t r i al hear i ng on t he appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s and t he gui l t phas e of t he appe l l ant ’ s t r i al
. C om bi ned, t hatevi dence s how ed t he fol l ow i ng. A t appr oxi m at el y 8: 00 p. m . , aft erdar k on N ew Y ear s E ve, D ece m ber31, 2006, J oe H ol den and hi s w i fe, J oanna, w er e i n t he dr i ve- t hr u l ane a t M cD onal d’ s . J oanna, w ho w as b eh ind the w h ee l, n o ti ce d that a m an sh e d id n o t k n o w h ad p u ll ed u p b esid e the m in a c ar. She des cr i bed t hi s m an as “ [j ] us t ki nd of gr i nni ng and j us t bei ng s t opped bes i de us
. . . and l ooki ng s t r ai ght at us [, w hi ch] j us t di dn’ t s eem nor m al t o m e. ” T he man l i nger ed forbet w eenDerichsweiler — 3

2 Ac c ordin g to Joanna , on this thi rd oc c a sio n the str ang e r c ontin ue d to sta reat th e m f

or thi rt y to f or ty-f ivese c on ds
. 3 J oe explained: Iwasn’t surewhat the motive was. I didn’t know i f therewas – may be whe n wepu lle d in

wec ut so mebo dy of

f, no t kn ow ingit a

nd up se t th e m. S o, you

kn ow , if they wer e out to g et us or if there was a robber y in progress. I

wasn’t surewhat the sit uatio n w a s, why

thi s w a s h a

pp e nin gor

wh at prov ok e d th is p e rs on to d o th is. On cross-examination, J oe admitted that he ha d witnessed no criminal conduc t and that the man ha d made no ove rtly

threateningg estures towa rds them. Asked whether the man had ma de “a

ny mov e me nts or

art ic ulatio ns of

any kin d th at c a

us e d you to be lie ve that the indivi du a l w a s a bo ut t o c omm it a c ri me a g a ins t you ? ” , Joe repli e d, “ I do n’ t kn ow ho w t o d e fi netha t, whe the r i t w a s ju st a fee ling wehad that – by

beingstared down, that something w asn’t right. L et me put it that way .” For her pa rt, J oanna t es t i fi ed th atshe fe lt “[f] ear . Ididn’t know what he wanted. I didn’t know if he w as g oing to rob us. I f – I didn’t know what hewanted. I was just afr aid at that point.” She also a dmi tt e d

o nc r o s s - e xami n ati o nth at s h e h a d w it n e s s e d n o c le ar - c ut c r im in a l b e h av io r or threat, but neverthe less, she “f elt like he wa s stalking us.” thir tysec o n d s to a m inu te b ef o re d ri v ing o n . H av ing p lace d their ord er, t h e H o lden s w ere
a sk e d to p u ll o u t o f

th e d riv e -th ru lan e w h ile the ir f o o d w a s b e in g p re p a re d
. W h e n th e yd id

s o, bot h J oe and J oanna not i ced t hatt he s ame st r anger had pos i t i oned hi s cart o t he fr ont of th e irs a n d w a s a g a in g rin n in g a n d sta rin g a t th e m . T h is s e e m e d to las t f o r f if tee n to tw e n ty
s econds , aft er w hi ch t he m an ci r cl ed t he r es t aur ant and t hen pul l ed up behi nd, and t o t he l eft

s i de of, t he H ol dens ’ car , “notqui t e bl ocki ng [t hem] i n. ” H e r enew ed hi s gr i nni ng and s t ar ed att hem for a bout t he s ame dur at i on, m aybe a l i t t l e l onger . T he H ol dens fel t “t hr eat ened” 2 and “i nt i m i dat ed” byt he man’ s pecul i arconduc t. T heys us pect ed t hatt her e mi ght be a

r obber yi n pr ogr es s or t hatt heyw er e t hems elve s b eing si zed up or“s t al ked. ” J oanna 3 i ns i s t ed t hatJ oe ca l l 911 and r epor t t he enc ount er . A s J oe di d s o, t he gr i nni ng m an l eftt heDerichsweiler — 4

4 At trial, J oe could not rec all whether he tol d the di spatche r how he and his wife weremade to fee l during this e ncounter , but he did r eiterate that he had re lated “what the vehic le was doing .”

5 Joanna te sti fi e d at tria l: Ireme mber just watchingthe vehicle
. And, of c ourse, my husband is still on the phone with 911. And a s he’s on the phone with 911, Iam re laying: He ’s moving he re , mo vin gthe re ; he ’s mov ing c los e r to the do or at Wa l- Ma

rt . And at th at po int , the police of

fice rs ca me in. M cD onal d’ s and dr ove i nt o t he par ki ng l ot of t he adj ace nt W al

- M ar t . T he H ol dens obs er ved h im en g ag e i n w h at ap p ea red to be si m il ar co n d u ct, p u ll ing u p b esid e a t l ea st t w o p ark ed ca rs i n t he W al

- M ar t par ki ng l ot and t ar r y i ng t her e, al t hough t hey coul d not s ee w hat t he m an w as d o ing fro m that d ist an ce in the d ark n ess. Jo e re lay ed to the 9 1 1 d ispa tche r:
w ho I w as , and as I s t ar t ed t o t el l h im w hyw e w er e ca l l i ng, m yw i fe s t ar t ed g iv in g m e th e d e sc rip tio n o f th e c a r a n d th e lice n se p late s. I g a v e th a t to di s pat ch and t ol d t hem t hat t her e w as – I don’ t r emem bert he exa ctw or ds , but bas i cal l yt her e w as s om e s us pi ci ous behavi or w i t h t he vehi cl e. A nd, y ou know , ki nd [of?] w hatt heyhad done. 4 J oe cont i nued t o des cr i be t he man’ s act i vi t yi n t he W al

- M ar t par ki ng l ot to the di s pat cher unt i l t he p o li ce a r r i ved and c onver ged on t he ca r t hathe had de s cr i bed. T he di s pat cher 5 asked them t o rem ai n o n the scene, and a short t i m e l at er t hey t al ked w i t h one of t he o ffi cers , gi vi ng hi m t hei rcont acti nfor m at i on. O f f ice r C a rra b yo f

th e L e w isv ill e P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, f re sh o u t o f th e a c a d e m yw ith l es s t han a y ear ’ s exper i ence on t he for ce, r ece i ved a c om put erm es s age f r om hi s di s pat cher

a b o u t a s u s p ic io u s c a r t h a t w a s “ c i r c lin g th e p a rk in g lo t o f W a l- M a rt a n d M c D o n a ld ’s .” Suppl i ed w i t h t he make, m odel , col or and l i cens e pl at e number of t he s us pi ci ous car , C ar r abyDerichsweiler — 5

6 All that Ca

rra by knew, other than J oe Holden’s name and the ide ntifying c hara cteristics of the ca r, wa s that “[t] he complaina nt thought that the vehicle was suspicious a nd wanted us to c heck it o ut. ” H e “ d id

n ’ t h av e any

id e a a b o ut wh at s p e c if

ic a c ti v it y . . . c r e ate d

th e s u s p ic io n [. ]” 7 Carr a by a c kn ow le dg e d th at thre e po lic e un its arrive d a nd surround e d th e a

pp e lla nt’ s c ar i n a p ark i n g s p ac e s o th ath e c o u l d n o tl eav e. T h e S t at e argu edo nap p ea l th atth e i n i t i al ex ch an ge betwee n the appellant and the policewas only an enc ounter, not a de tention, and that therewas no require ment of rea sonable suspicion to justify it. The court of appea ls he ld otherwise, id . at 809-10, and wedeclined to grant discr etionary revie w of this issue. For purposes of this opinion, we the re fo rea ssume tha

t th e a pp e lla nt w a s d e ta ine d f

or inv e sti g ativ e purp os e s. Th e on ly iss uec ur re ntl y befor e us is the leg ality

of the investig ative dete ntion. 8 For example, in one of its findings of fac t the trial court f

ound: Although O ffice r Carr aby testifie d th at he c ould not remember if dispatch had sp o tted it righ t a w a y a s it d ro v e d o w n o n e sid e o f th e W a l-M a rt p a rk in g lo t an d p u lled in to
a sp a c e . C a rra b ya c k n o w led g e d th a t th e o n lyin f o rm a tio n h e h a d to b a se re a so n a b le

s us pi ci on o n w as t he di s pat cher ’ s br oadca s t t hata ci t i zen byt he name of J oe H ol den w as
r epor t i ng a s us pi ci ous vehi cl e. T he di s pat cherdi d not pas s al ong t he det ai l s t hat had s er ved t o r ai s e th e Hol dens ’ s us pi ci ons . A ft ert he pol i ce “ s ur r ounded” the ca r , C ar r abyappr oache d 6 7 i t and “c ont act ed” t he dr i ver , w hom he i dent i fi ed i n cour t as t he appe l l ant . W hen t he

a p p e llan t ro lled d o w n th e d riv e r’s sid e w in d o w , C a rra b y “ sm e lled a stro n g o d o r o f a lco h o lic bever age c om i ng fr om t he vehi cl e, ” and he began a D W I i nves t i gat i on t hatcul m i nat ed i n t he appel l ant ’ s pr os ecut i on. A f ter trial, th e trial co u rt e n ter e d w ritten f in d in g s o f

f a c t an d c o n c lu sio n s o f

law w ith resp ec t t o the leg ali tyo f th e a p p ell an t’ s d eten tio n . N o t a ll of the tri al co u rt ’s find ing s are
su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd
. H o w e v e r, th e f o llo w in g f

in d in g s o f

f a c t d o f in d re c o rd su p p o rt: 8Derichsweiler — 6

provided a

ny information from [the] Holdens of any specific crime that had bee n committed or was about to be committed by the [appellant], he did testify that he had rea sonable suspicion to believe that there was possible criminal activity underw ay

or about to occur

based on theinformation provided by dispatch[.] This f inding is misleading at best, in two r espec ts. First, Carra by had no indepe ndent re collection of wh at di sp atc h h a d to ld h im at a ll
. He wa s all ow e d to r e fr e shhis me mor y wi th h is o ff

e ns e repo rt , howeve r, and onc e he did so hetestified: Idon’t reme mber from memory , but based on the doc ument that I ’m rea ding, it wa s a suspicious subject phone call. The witness advised they saw a small gr ay

car . They g ave the. . . Texas license plate number a s . . . 971 MPM, circlingthe par king lot of Wal-Mart and Mc Donald’s. Thecomplainant thought that the veh ic lew a s s u s p ic ious and wa nte d u s to c he c k it

out. If anyth i n g , th e i n f

e r e n c e t o b e dr awnf

r o mth i s , a s w e l l a s f

r o mth e b a l an c e o f

C ar r a b y’ s t e s t i m o ny, seenote 6, an te , is sim

ply tha t th e di sp atc he r n e ve r p ro vid e d h im w ithany inf or matio n a bo ut a sp e c if ic c ri me tha

t th e app ellant ha d c omm itt e d o r w a s a bo ut t o c omm it—not

that he could not reme mber whether

dispatch had so infor

med him. Second, Carr aby never specific ally

testified that he believe d he had a rea sonable suspicion to detain the appe llant. He wa s never asked to g ive, and did not offer, an y o p i n i on whatsoeve r with respe ct to this question of law. He did testify that he p er s o n al l y

b el i ev ed“th er e w as p o s s i b l e c ri m i n al ac t i v i ty af o o t ” b y v i rtu e o f th e f

ac tth at , al th o u gh not ag ainst the law, “ it’s not normal for vehicles to drive around the parking lot at 8:00 o’clock at night.” In another

of i ts finding s of fa ct, the trial c ourt found that Carraby “cor roborated the Holden’ s [si c] strang e beha

vior and suspicion of criminal activity by contac ting the [appe llant] and obser ving signs that hewa s intoxic ate d[.]”Th is f inding , whil e we ll e no ugh supp or te d b y there c or d, is irrele v an t t o the question whethe r the initial stop of the appe llant was lawf ul. That the appe llant appea red intoxi cate d cameto light only afte r the challeng ed detention was a fait accompli. It cannot be invoked r etroa ctively to help justify that detention. Cf. Flor ida v . J . L. , 529 U.S. 266, 271 (2000) (“Therea sonablene ss of offic ial suspicion must be measure d by what the of

fice rs knew be forethey c on du c te d th e ir

se arc h. ” ); Cra in v . S

tate , 315 S.W .3d 43, 52-53 (Te x . Crim. App. 2010) (same ). 1
. O n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , aro u n d 8 :0 0 p .m ., J o e H o ld e n a n d h is w i fe J oanna obse r ved t he [appel l ant ] dr i vi ng ar ound t he par ki ng l ot of M cD onal ds l ocat ed i n L ew i s vi l l e, T X
. T h e [appel l ant ] w as par ki ng nextt o t hei rvehi cl e fors hor t per i ods of t i m e, s t ar i ng an d g ri nni ng at the H o lden s. T h e H o lden s d id n o t kn o w the [ ap p ell an t] ; 2. J oe H ol den and hi s w i fe J oanna ha d cal l ed 911 and r epor t ed t he [appe l l ant ’ s ] odd behavi or and fe ar t hat t he [a ppel l ant ] m i ght be aboutDerichsweiler — 7

9 843 S.W .2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 10 De ric hs we ile r v . S

tate , su pra . t o comm i t an unknow n cr i m e aga i ns t t hem or s om eone e l s e; * * * 6. T he H ol dens pr ovi ded 911 w i t h det ai l ed d escr i pt i on of t he [ a p p e llan t’s] v e h icle to in c lu d e th e m a k e , m o d e l, co lo r, an d c o m p lete li ce n se p lat e n u m b er o f h is car; 7. W hen O ffi cerC ar r abyarr i ved att he s cene after re cei vi ng t he H ol den’ s i nfor m at i on from d i s pat ch, he obs er ved [t he ca r t heyhad des cr i bed] dr i vi ng t hr ough t he W al

- M ar t par ki ng l ot . T hi s i nfor m at i on cor r obor at ed t he s p ec ifi c des cr i pt i on pr ovi ded t o di s pat ch byJ oe H ol den; 8. T he H ol dens r emai ned on t he s cene aft ert he Lew i s vi l l e pol i ce a rriv e d , th e re b y p lac in g th e m se lv e s in a p o sitio n to b e h e ld a c c o u n tab le f o r t h e ir re p o rt [ .] Fr o m thes e fa ct s , and r eas oni ng fr om t he opi ni on of t hi s C our t i n B o b o v . S ta te , t he t r i al 9

cour t concl uded:

Li k e t h e o f

f i c e r i n B obo , O f

f ice r C a rra b yw a s p re se n ted w ith in f o rm a tio n b ya n id e n tifie d in f o rm a n t o f

a n in d iv id u a l’s s u sp icio u s a c tiv ity but no s peci fi c cr i m i nal act . O ffi cerC ar r abyw as abl e t o i dent i fyt he [appe l l ant ’ s ] vehi cl e fr om t he s peci fi c des cr i pt i on pr ovi ded t o hi m byt he H ol dens att he l ocat i on t heyr epor t ed, t her ebycorrobor at i ng t he t i p he had re c e iv e d . B a se d o n O f f ic e r C a rra b y ’s te stim o n y , h e c lea rlyh a d re a so n a b le s us pi ci on t o det ai n t he [appel l ant ] t o i nves t i gat e hi s s us pi ci ous behavi or and p o s s i b l e i n v o l v e m e n t i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. O n ap peal, t he ap pell ant ar gu ed that t he t ri al cou rt err ed i n den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press . O vert he di s s entof one of i t s m ember s , a pane l of t he cour t of appe al s agr eed. 10Derichsweiler — 8

11 Id . at 810-11 ( c iti ng

Fe aran c ev . S

tate , 771 S.W .2d 486, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) for the proposition that probabl e cau s e to arre st is determined ac cordingto “the sum of the infor mation known to the coope ratingoffice rs”)
.

12 De ric hs we ile r v . S

tate , su pra , at 810. 13 Id . at 812. 14 Id . at 811. In th e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a c k n o w led g e d c a se law f ro m th is C o u rt h o ld in g th a t p ro b a b le

caus e ( i f notr eas onabl e s us pi ci on) m ay be j udged by t he s um of i nfor m at i on know n t o t he p o lice , co llec tiv e ly , at th e tim e o f a w a rra n tles s a rre st. N e v e rth e les s, th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls 11 in iti a llym e a su re d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n in th is c a se “ b y lo o k in g a t o n lyth o se f a c ts k n o w n to O f f ice r C a rra b y ” a t th e tim e h e d e tain e d th e a p p e llan t, a p p a re n tlyd isc o u n tin g th e sp e c if ic 12 i nfor m at i on t hatt he H ol dens s uppl i ed t o t he di s pat cher dur i ng t he 911 ca l l
. B eca us e C ar r aby d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y o b s e r v e a n y c r i m i n a l b e h a v i o r , a n d b e c a u s e t h e b e h a v i o r t h a t C a r r a b y d id obs er ve— t he appe l l ant“ci r cl i ng” t he W al

- M ar t par ki ng l ot at8: 00 p. m . — w hi l e i t m aynot h a v e b e e n “ n o rm a l,” d o e s n o t sp e c if ica llysu g g e st c rim in a l co n d u c t per se , t h e c o ur t of appea l s concl uded t hathe l acke d r eas onabl e sus pi ci on t o j us t i fy t he det ent i on. A l ong t he 13

w ay , t he cour t of appe al s di s t i ngui s hed B obo , upon w hi ch t he t r i al cour t h ad rel i ed, by

o b se rv in g th a t th e in f

o rm a tio n th a t h a d b e e n k n o w n to th e d e tain in g o f f ice r th e re sp e c if

ica lly

s ugges t ed t hatt he off

ens e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s had bee n comm i t t ed. 14Derichsweiler — 9

15 Id . at 812. 16 Id
. 17 Id
. 18 Id . at 814 (Ga

rdner , J ., dissenting)
. 19 Id
. A l t er nat i vel y , t he court o f appe al s hel d t hat , even c ons i der i ng t he s peci fi c i nfor m at i on t hat t h e Hol d e n s h a d o b s e r v e d a n d i mpa r t e d t o t h e 9 1 1 d i s p a t c h e r , b u t whi c h w as never pas s ed al ong t o C ar r aby , as par t of t he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s know n col l ect i vel yt o t he pol i ce, r eas onabl e s us pi ci on w as s t i l l l acki ng t o s uppor t t he appe l l ant ’ s det ent i on. N ot hi ng 15 t hatt he H ol dens obs er ved “c oul d be des cr i bed as cr i m i nal act i vi t y [. ] ” For t hi s r eas on, t he 16

c o u rt o f a p p e a ls h e ld , the H o ld e n s’ in f o rm a ti o n c o u ld n o t se rv e to su p p lyth e d e f icits in C ar r aby ’ s per s onal obs er vat i ons t hatw oul d compl et e t he s cena r i o forr eas onabl e s us pi ci on,
even un der t he tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances. 17 J us t i ce G ar d n e r d i s a g r e e d
. Sh e a r g u e d i n d i s s e n t t h a t t h e ma j o r i t ye r r e d t o r e q u i r e,
as a pr er equi s i t e t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, t hatt he i nfor m at i on m aki ng up t he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s m us t i ncl ude s om e s peci fi c obs er vat i on of a cr i m e. L i ke t he t r i al cour t , s he 18 bel i eved ouropi ni on i n B obo t o be contr ol l i ng and di s agr eed w i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he def

endanti n B obo h a d b e e n o b s e r v e d e n g a g i n g i n c r i m i n a l t r e s p a s s . U l t i m a t e l y, 19 J us t i ce G ar dner found t hat t he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , t hough compri s ed of i nnocentDerichsweiler — 10

20 Id . at 816. 21 T EX . R. A PP . P. 66.3(c). 22 Am ad or v . S tate , 221 S.W .3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 23 Id . (“Theappellatecourts re view de novo ‘mix ed questions of lawand fa ct’ that do not depend upon c redibility

and deme anor.” ). e n o u g h c o n d u c t o n th e a p p e llan t’s p a rt, w a s n e v e rth e les s s u f f icie n t in th e a g g re g a te to p ro v id e re a so n a b le su sp icio n to b e liev e th a t h e w a s c o m m itt in g th e o f f e n se o f d riv in g w h ile i nt oxi cat ed. W e gr ant ed t he St at e’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onar y r evi ew t o addr es s w het hert he

20

c o u rt o f a p p eal s er red byrequi ri ng som e ob ser vati on of a sp eci fi c cri m i nal offense as a necessarycom po nen t of reasonab l e suspi ci on un der t he tot al i t yof the ci rcum st ances. 21 THE LA W St andard of R evi ew In re v iew ing a tri al co u rt ’s ruli n g o n a p re-tr ial m o ti o n to su p p ress, an ap p ell ate c o u rt
m us t gi ve al m os t t ot al defe r ence t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of ques t i ons of hi s t or i cal fac t and of mi xed ques t i ons of l aw and fa ctt hatt ur n on t he w ei ght or cr edi bi l i t yof t he evi dence
. 22 T he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct , as w e have s etout i n t he t ext above, ar e ampl ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. I n anyevent , i n t hi s par t i cul ar cas e, w het her t her e w as a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o det ai n t he appe l l antdoes not t ur n on t he dem eanor or cr edi bi l i t y of t he w i t nes s es , but on the leg al s ig n if

ican ce o f th e f

ac ts t h ey rec o u n ted. A cc o rdin g ly , w e a cc ep t th e tri al co u rt ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t a s re c o u n te d a b o v e a s tr u e a n d p ro c e e d , de novo , t o t he l egal ques t i on 23Derichsweiler — 11

24 Fo rd v . S tate , 158 S.W .3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (once defe ndant s hows police detained him without a wa rra nt, burden shifted to State to establish re asonablesuspicion to justi fy it). 25 Id
. Se eals o , Uni te d Stat e s v. Soko low , 490 U. S. 1, 7 (1 98 9) (“po lic e c an s top and brie fl y detain a pe rson for inve stigativ e p urp o s es if the off icer has a r easona

ble suspicion supported by arti c u la b lef a c ts th at c r im in a l a c ti v it

y ma y b e a f o o t, e v e nif

th e o f f ic e r la c k s p r o b a

b lec a u s e . ”) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) (same). 26 United States v. Sok

olow , su pra ; Cra in v . S

tate , su pra , at 52. Se e Te rry v . Ohio , 3 92 U. S. 1, 21 -2 2 ( 19 68 ) ( “ thepo lic e of fi c e r m us t bea bleto p oint to sp e c if

ic and art ic ula blefa c ts whic h, if taken tog ethe r wi th rational infer ence s from those fa cts, rea sonably war rant”an investig ative detention, and “i t i s i mperative that the fa cts be judg ed ag ainst an objec tive standard: would the fac ts available to the of

fice r at the moment of the seizure . . . war rant a man of re asonablecaution in the belief that the action take n was a ppropriate ”) ( internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Te rry v . Ohio , su

pra . w het her t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s as s o cons t r ued s at i s fi ed t he St at e’ s bur den t o pr ove th a t th e a p p e ll a n t’s w a rra n tles s in v e stig a tiv e d e ten tio n w a s s u p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le

s us pi ci on. 24 R eas onabl e Suspi ci on U n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, a w a rra n tles s d e ten tio n o f th e p e rso n th a t a m o u n ts to l es s t han a ful l

- bl ow n cus t odi al ar r es t m us t be j us t i fi ed bya r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. A pol i ce 25 offi cerhas r eas onabl e sus pi ci on t o det ai n i f he has s peci fi c, ar t i cul abl e fact s t hat , combi ned

w i t h r at i onal i nferen ce s from t hos e fa ct s , w oul d l ead hi m r eas onabl yt o concl ude t hatt he p e rso n d e tain e d is, h a s b e e n , o r so o n w ill b e e n g a g e d in c rim in a l a c tiv ity
. T h is s tan d a rd is 26 an object i ve one t hat dis regar ds t he act ual subject i ve i ntent of the arr est i ng off i cer and looks, i ns t ead, t o w het hert her e w as an obj ect i vel y j us t i fi abl e basi s for t he det ent i on. I t al s o l ooks 27Derichsweiler — 12

28 U n ite d S ta te s v . Co r tez , 4 4 9 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981) ( “the e ssenceof all that has be en written is that the totality

of the c ircumstance s—the whole picture—must be taken into ac count.”)
. 29 Re id v. G e or

gia , 448 U.S. 438, 441 (1980); United States v. Sok olow , su pra , at 9-10; Illinois v. W

ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000). 30 W oo ds v . S tate , 956 S.W .2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 31 Adams v. W

illiams , 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972). 32 Ho ag v . S tate , 728 S.W .2d 375, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). See U nited States v. He nsley , 4 6 9 U. S. 221, 232-33 (1985) (of fice r may detain suspec t based upon policebulletin so long as iss uin ge nti ty

ha s r e a so na

blesu sp ic ion

to j us tif y de te nti on ); Illinois v. Andreas , 463 U.S. 765, 771 n . 5 (1 9 8 3 ) ( “wh er e l awen fo rc em en tauth o ri t i es ar e c o o p er at i n g i n ani nv es t i gat i o n , th e kn o wl ed ge of one is pre sumed share d by all.”). 33 See , e.g. , United States v. W hitaker , 546 F.3d 902, 909 n.1 2 (7 Cir. 2008) (“911 c alls by th identified ca llers ca

n provide the police with r easona ble suspicion and . . . 911 employees a re pa rt of thepo lic e c oll e c tiv e .” ); United States v. Ruidiaz , 5 29 F .3 d 2 5 ( 1 Cir . 200 8) (o ff ic e r c ou ld r e ly st on inf or matio n p a sse d o n b y

91 1 d isp atc he r i n for

mul atin g re a so na

ble su sp ic ion); United States v. to th e to talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s; th o se c irc u m sta n c e s m a ya ll se e m in n o c e n t e n o u g h in 28 i s ol at i on, but i f t heycombi ne t o r eas onabl ys ugges t t he i m m i nence of cr i m i nal conduct , an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on i s j us t i fi ed. “[T] he r el eva nt i nqui r yi s not w het herpar t i cul ar 29 conducti s i nnocentor cr i m i nal , but t he degr ee of s us pi ci on t hatat t ache s t o par t i cul arnoncr i m i nal act s . ” M or eover , t he det ai ni ng offi cer need not be per s onal l yaw ar e of e ver yfac t 30 t h a t o b j e c t i v e l ys u p p o r t s a r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o d e t a i n ; r a t h e r , “ t h e c u mul at i ve 31 in f o rm a tio n k n o w n to th e c o o p e ra tin g o f f ice rs a t th e tim e o f

th e sto p is to b e c o n sid e re d in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r re a so n a b le s u sp icio n e x ists.” A 9 1 1 p o lice d isp a tc h e r is o rd in a rily 32

r e g a r d e d a s a “ c o o p e r a t i n g o f f i c e r ” f o r p u rp o s e s o f

m a k i n g t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . F i n a l l y, 33Derichsweiler — 13

Fe rn an de z- Cas tillo , 324 F.3d 1114, 1118 ( 9 Cir. 2003) (“A lthough the H ighw ay Patrol dispatcher th distil led and pa

raphr ased [the] information” su p p o r tin g re a s o n a b les u s p icion, court c onsidered it par t of thec oll e c tiv e kn ow le dg e of thepo lic e ); United States v. Kaplansky , 42 F.3d 320, 327 ( 6 Cir. th 1994) (“where office rs are told to investigate a situation without beingtold all of the fac ts justi fying investigation, the court must look beyond the s pecif ic facts known to the offic ers on the sc ene to the facts known to the dispatcher .”). Bu t se e, c on tra : United States v. Colon , 2 5 0 F
. 3 d 1 3 0 ( 2 Cir.

nd 2001) (collec tive-knowledg e doctrine does not embra ce inf ormation known to civilian 911 operator that was not passe d on to police dispatche r or of fice rs on the sce ne). 34 Adams v. W

illiams , su pra (tip from known informant who had suppl ied reliable information in the past, and who c ould have be en ar rested f or fa lse repor

t, deemed suf

ficiently reliable to satisfy rea sonable suspicion standard even if his information might not havesupplied probable c ause)
. See Way ne R. L aF ave, 4 S EA R C H AND S EI ZURE : A T RE AT I S E ON TH E F OUR TH A MENDME NT § 9.5(h) at 576 & n.453 ( 4 ed. 2004) ( case s finding r easona ble suspi ci o n that “involve nothingmore than th permitting a

stop upon suspicious circumstance s repor ted t o th e police by

a re liable per son in a nonconclusory

fashion” a

re “unobjectionable unde r any rea sonable view of how the Te rry standard should be applied” ).

35 Cf
. Te x as v . B ro wn , 460 U.S. 730, 742-43 (1983) (plurality opinion) (offic er’ s knowledg e, experienceand tra ining a

re r eleva nt in determination whethe r he ha d probablecauseto believe item he obser ved in plain view c onstitut ed contr aband)
. i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded t o pol i ce f r om a ci t i zen- i nfor m antw ho i dent i fi es hi m s el f and m aybe h eld to ac co u n t fo r t h e a cc u rac yan d v era cit yo f his rep o rt m ay b e reg ard ed as re li ab le. In 34

s u c h a s c e n a r i o , t h e o n l yq u e s t i o n i s whe t h e r t h e i n f o r ma t i o n t h a t t h e k n o wn ci t i zeni nfor m antpr ov ides , vi ew ed t hr ough t he pr i s m of t he det ai ni ng offi cer ’ s par t i cul arl evel of know l edge a nd exper i ence , obj ect i vel ys uppor t s a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve t hat 35

c rim in a l ac tiv ityis a f

o o t. A N A L Y S IS

W h at Is N

ot A t I s s ue H ere T her e i s no i s s ue i n t hi s cas e w i t h r es pectt o t he r el i abi l i t y of t he i nfor m at i on s uppl i edDerichsweiler — 14

36 Seenotes 32 and 33, an te . byt he ci t i zen- i nfor m ant s
— t he H ol dens
. A s t he t r i al cour t found, t heyi dent i fi ed t hemsel ves t o t he 911 di s pat cher and r emai ned ans w er abl e for t hei r r epor t aft er t he fac t . T hatr epor t w as bas ed upon t hei r ow n fi r s t - hand pe rce p ti ons , m anyof w hi ch t heycont i nuous l yand

c o n tem p o ra n e o u slyn a rra ted to th e p o lice v ia th e 9 1 1 d isp a tch e r. N o r d o w e h e sita te to i ncl ude w hatt he H ol dens r epor t ed as par t of t he obj ect i ve i nfor m at i on t hatO ffi cerC ar r aby

w as ent i t l ed t o r el yupon i n m aki ng t he i nves t i gat i ve s t op. E ven i f C ar r abyw as not p e rso n a lly a w a re o f th e d e taile d in f o rm a tio n th e H o ld e n s h a d re p o rte d to su b sta n tiate th e ir p erc ep ti o n that the a p p ell an t’ s ca r w as “ su sp ici o u s, ” the 9 1 1 d ispa tche r w as. T h e tri al co u rt
s peci fi cal l yfound t hatt he H ol dens des cr i bed t he appe l l ant ’s conduct , bot h as di r ect ed at t hem i n t he M cD onal d’ s par ki ng l ot , and l at er , as i t w as appar ent l y di r ect ed at ot her s ( or at l eas t atot hercar s ) i n t he par ki ng l ot of t he W al

- M ar t , t o t he 911 di s pat cher
. I t m at t er s not that the d ispa tche r did n o t pas s all o f th ese d etail s alo n g to the re sp o n d ing o ff icers. I n
a s s e s s in g re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n , vel non , a r evi ew i ng cour t l ooks t o t he t ot al i t yof obj ect i ve i nfor m at i on know n c o llec tive ly t o t he coope r at i ng pol i ce of fi ce r s , i ncl udi ng t he 911 di s pat cher
. T he i s s ue i n t hi s cas e boi l s dow n, t her efor e, s i m pl yt o w het hert he t ot al i t yof

36 th a t re liab le in f

o rm a tio n p ro v id e d sp e c if ic, a rticu lab le f

a c ts th a t, co m b in e d w ith re a so n a b le i nfer ence s t o be der i ved fr om t hos e fact s , w oul d l ead t o t he r eas onabl e conc l us i on t hatt he

a p p e l l a n t w a s c o m m i t t i n g , o r s o o n w o u l d b e e n g a g e d i n , s o m e t yp e o f c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y.Derichsweiler — 15

37 Cra in v . S

tate , su pra , at 52. 38 Me e k s v . S tate , 653 S.W .2d 6, 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (emphasis adde d). 39 De ric hs we ile r v . S

tate , su pra , at 811. 40 Id . at 814 (Ga

rdner dissenting)
. R eas onabl e Suspi ci on of a P art i cul ar O f

f ens e? A s t he ap pell ant ar gu es, t he fa ct s i nv ok ed to j ust i fyan i nv est i gati ve d et enti on m ust
s u p p o r t mor e t h a n a me r e h u n c h o r g o o d

- f a i t h i n t u i t i o n t h a t c r i mi n a l a c t i v i t yi s a f o o t . To 37

s uppor t a r eas onabl e sus pi ci on, t he ar t i cul abl e fa ct s m us t s how “t hats om e ac t i vi t yout of t he

or di nar yhas occur r ed, s om e sugges t i on t o connec t t he det ai nee t o t he unus ual act i vi t y , and

s o me i n d i c a t i o n t h a tt h e u n u s u a la c t i v i t y is r e l a t e d

t o c r i me .” D o e s th is m e a n th a t th e f a c ts 38

m us t poi nt di s t i nct i vel yt o the ac tual o r i m pendi ng comm i s s i on of a pa r t i cul arpenal code offe ns e? T he cour t of appe al s m aj or i t ys eems t o have be l i eved s o. T he poi nt of cont ent i on bet w een t he maj or i t yand di s s ent i ng opi ni ons bel ow hi nged u pon t hei r compet i ng i nt erpr et at i ons of B obo
. T he m aj or i t y bel i eved t hatt he ar t i cul abl e fa ct s s uppor t i ng t he s t op i n B obo pr ovi ded suff

i ci ent r eas on t o bel i eve thata cr i m i nal t r es pas s had occ ur r ed. J us t i ce 39 G a rd n e r dis a g re e d th a t B obo t ur ned on a f i ndi ng t hatt he fa ct s poi nt ed t o a par t i cul arand d istin c t p e n a l o f

f e n se . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e m a jo rityb e lo w e rre d to th e e x ten t th a t it s 40

o p in io n m a yb e re a d f

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t f a c ts a d d u c e d to g iv e rise to a re a so n a b le

su sp icio n m u st s h o w th a t th e d e tain e e h a s co m m itt e d , is c o m m itt in g , o r is a b o u t to c o m m it,Derichsweiler — 16

41 See Alab am a v . W

hite , 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990) (“ Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding sta nd ard tha n pro ba ble c a us e no t only in the se ns e that r e a so na blesu sp ic ion

c an b e e sta

bli sh e d w ith information that is differ ent in quantity or content than that re quired to establish proba ble ca use, but also in the sense that rea sonable suspi cion can arise from information that is less reliablethan that require d to show probable c ause.” ).

42 Me e k s v . S tate , su pra . a par t i cul arand di s t i nct i vel yi dent i fi abl e pena l offe ns e. U nl i ke t he ca s e w i t h pr obabl e ca us e t o j us t i fyan arr es t , i t i s not a s i ne qua non of

r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hata det ai ni ng offi cer be abl e t o pi npoi nt a par t i cul arpenal i nfr act i on. T he reason is si m ple b u t fun dam ental
. A bri ef i nv est i gati ve d et enti on con st i t utes a
s i g n i f i c a n t l yl e s s e r i n t r u s i o n u p o n t h e p r i v a c y a n d i n t e g r i t y o f t h e p e r s o n t h a n a f u l l

- b l o wn
cus t odi al ar r es t . F o r th is r eas on, a w ar r ant l es s i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on m aybe dee m ed “r eas onabl e” f

or Four t h A m endment purpos es on t he bas i s of a l es s er quantum or qual i t yof i nfor m at i on— r eas onabl e s us pi ci on r at hert han pr obabl e ca us e. L i kew i s e, beca us e a 41 d e ten tio n is le ss in tru siv e th a n a n a rre st, th e s p e c if icityw ith w h ich th e a rticu lab le i nfor m at i on know n t o t he pol i ce mustdemonst rate tha ta par t i cul arpenal offe ns e has

oc c u r r e d , i s o c c u r r i n g , o r s o o n wi l l o c c u r , i s c o n c o mi t a n t l y l e s s . I t i s , a f t e r al l , onl y an “i nves t i gat i ve” de t ent i on. So l ong as t he i nt r us i on does not exce ed t he l egi t i m at e s cope of

su c h a d e ten tio n a n d e v o lv e in to the g reate r in tru siv e n e ss in h e re n t in a n a rre st- s ans - pr obabl ec a u se , the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t w ill to ler a te a c e rta in d e g re e o f p o lice p ro a c tio n . P a rticu lar ly

w i t h resp ect t o inform at i on sugg est i ng t hat a cr i m e i s aboutt o occur , t he r equi r ement t hat th e re b e “ so m e in d ica tio n th a t th e u n u su a l a c tiv ity is re late d to c rim e ” d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily 42Derichsweiler — 17
m ean thatt he i nfor m at i on m us t l ead i nexor abl yt o t he conc lusion t hata par t i cul arand i dent i fi abl e pena l code of fense i s i m m i nent . I t i s enough t o s at i s fyt he l es s ers t andar d of

r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n th a tthe i nfor m at i on i s s uffi ci ent l ydet ai l ed and r el i abl e— i
. e. , i t s u p p o rts
m o re th a n a n in a rticu late h u n c h o r in tu iti o n
— to su g g e st th a t s om ethi ngo f a n a p p a re n tly

cr i m i nal natur e i s br ew i ng. W hi l e i t i s admi t t edl ya cl os e ca l l , t he i nfor m at i on know n col l ect i vel yt o t he pol i ce i n t h i s c a s e u l t i ma t e l y s a t i s f i e s t h i s s t a n d a r d
. Th e a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n d u c t , p a r t i c u l a r l y as d ire c ted a t th e H o ld e n s, w h ile n o t o v e rtly c rim in a l in a n yw a y , w a s b iza rre to sa yth e lea st. M o reo v er, t h e re p eti ti o n o f sim il ar, ap p are n tl yscru ti n izi n g , b eh av ior d ir ec ted a t park ed ca rs i n t h e a d j a c e n t W a l

- M a r t p a r k i n g l o t r e a s o n a b l ys u g g e s t s a p o t e n t i a l c r i mi n a l mot i v e t hat tra n sc e n d e d a n yp a rticu lar in ter e st in th e H o ld e n s th e m se lv e s. It re a so n a b lysu g g e sts
s om eone w ho w as l ooking to c r i m i nal l yexpl oi t s om e vul ner abi l i t y
— a w eak ori s ol at ed in d iv id u a l to ro b o r an u n a tten d e d a u to to b u rg le. It m a tters n o t th a t all o f th is c o n d u c t co u ld be const rued as i nn ocen t of i t sel f; for pu rposes of a reas on able- suspi ci on analy sis , it is enough t hatt he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s , vi ew ed obj ect i vel yand i n t he aggr egat e,
s ugges t s t he r eal i s t i c pos s i bi l i t yof a c r i m i nal m o ti v e, how everamorphous , t hatw as about to b e a c ted u p o n . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p e rm its th e p o lice to
m ake a br i ef s t op t o i nves t i gat e, i f onl ybyt hei r pr es ence t o aver t an i nchoat e off ens e. N ot hi ng aboutour opi ni on i n B obo i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t hi s h o l di ng. I n B obo , t he d e f e n d a n t a n d a c o mp a n i o n we r e o b s e r v e d b y a c i t i z e n - i n f o r ma n t “ mi l l i n g a r o u nd s omeDerichsweiler — 18

43 843 S.W .2d at 573. 44 Id . at 575. 45 Id
. 46 Ind e e d, it i s arguab le th at th is c a se pr e se nts mor e c omp e lli ngfa c ts t o s up po rt re a so na ble su sp ic ion tha n d oe s Bobo
. Thereis no indication in our opinion in Bobo that the citizen-informant ever explained to any

member of

the police c ollective what it was that made B obo’s pre sencearound the townhouses suspicious. Our opinion does not clearly indicate that it was thecitizen-informant wh o k ne w that B ob o a

nd his c omp anio n w e re“ in a n a re a wh e re t hey sh ou ld not be [,]” muc h le ss how he might have come t o that opinion. Her e the rec ord supports the conclusion that the Holdens described the appe llant’ s b izarre be havior to the 911 dispatche r, so that the police c ollective had s p e c i f i c i n f o r m at i o nh o wan d

why th e a

p p e l l ant ’ s c o n d

u c tar o u s e d

s u s p i c i o no f

c r i m i n a l a c t i v i ty. t ow nhous es . ” I t i s t rue t hat , atanot herpoi nt i n B obo , w e ch ar act er i zed thi s as an 43 obs er vat i on t hatt he def endantand hi s co m p an ion w er e “i n an ar ea w her e t heys houl d not be[. ] ” B ut w e neve r expl ai ned t hi s char act er i zat i on and neve r expr es s l ydecl ar ed t hatB obo

44 had t her ebycomm i t t ed t he off ens e of c r i m i nal t r es pas s . W e s i m pl yhel d: T he repo rtof a c i t i zen identi fy i ng su spi ci ou s pers on s ar ou nd several ho m es, th e o b se rv a tio n o f

a p p e ll a n t, w h o m a tch e d th e d e sc rip tio n in th e re p o rt, l eaving i n an autom ob i l e subsequ ent t o t he report and [t he d et ai ning of fi cer’ s] exper i ence al l pr ovi ded [t he offi cer ] a r eas onabl e ar t i cul abl e s us pi ci on tha t a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n n e c t e d w i t h c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. 45 S o far as w e kn ow , i t i s nota cr i m i nal t r es pas s s i m pl yt o “mi l l ar ound” t ow nhous es . E ven
so , u n d e r th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, w e h e ld th a t th e d e tain in g o f f ice r h a d re a so n a b le

su sp icio n to det ai n B ob o. W e l i kew i se hold t od ayt hat t he tot al i t yof cir cum st ances, i ncludi ng t he appell ant’ s strangel ypersi st ent, i f adm i t t edlyno n-cr i m i nal, beh avior , gav e ri se t o a r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t h e w a s a b o u t t o e n g a g e i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. 46Derichsweiler — 19

47 SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1 (“The c ourt of appea ls must hand down a written opinion that . . . addre sses eve ry

issue raised a

nd nece ssary

to final dispositi on of the a ppeal.” ). CO NC L US I ON F or the forego i ng reas on s, w e revers e t he judgm ent of t he co urtof ap peals
. T he cau se is r em an d ed to tha t cou rtto ad d ress the ap p ell an t’ s rem ainin g p o ints of erro r. 47 D E L I V E R E D : J anuar y26, 2011 PU BL I SH