Reversed and Remanded and Opinion Filed January 21, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00278-CR No. 05-14-00279-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant V. JARQUIS D. JACKSON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. MB13-62072 and MB13-62071 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis Jarquis D. Jackson was charged with the mi sdemeanor offenses of unlawfully carrying a weapon and possession of marijuana. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing his detention was illegal because officers did not ha ve reasonable suspicion. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed. In a single i ssue, the State argues th e trial court erred in concluding an anonymous tip did not support the o fficers’ reasonable suspicion. We agree with the State. Therefore, we reve rse the trial court’s orders a nd remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. At about 4 a.m. on September 2, 2013, a caller reported to 911 that a black male in a white T-shirt was “displaying” a gun on the parking lot of a gas station. The caller reported there–2– were “a lot of people” on the parking lot, and the man was with a group of seven other men. The caller stayed on the line with 911 while officers responded. Dallas Police Officers J. Dicks on, Craig Thomas, and Lance Crawford were dispatched to the scene. The gas station is in a high-crime area with a nightclub nearby. While driving there, the officers received information that the man w ith the gun had gotten into a dark-colored Honda with no front license plate and blue headlights; the car was backed into the gas station and its headlights were flashing. When the officers arrived at the scene, th ey saw the Honda with the flashing lights matching the description given by the caller. As the officers got out of their vehicles, the Honda started to pull away. Th e officers, who had their guns drawn but at their side, motioned for the car to stop, and the vehicle did. As they approached the vehicle, Crawford said he could smell marijuana. The officers had the three occupants, who were all dressed in white T-shirts, get out of the car while they patted them down for w eapons. No weapons were found. The doors of the vehicle were left open when th e occupants got out. While one of the officers checked for warrants, Thomas walked around the vehicle a nd spotted a gun in plain view on the passenger floorboard. The gun was “slide-side down, with the grip closest facing th e driver.” Appellant said the gun was his. The warrant check reveal ed that appellant had outstanding warrants, and officers arrested him. In the search incident to arrest, they found mari juana in his pocket. Marijuana was also found in the vehicle. At the scene, Crawford used the number on the 911 call sheet to contact the tipster to see if he could “get more information.” The man to ld Crawford he was ther e when officers drove up and confirmed they were investigating the correc t vehicle. Crawford asked for the man’s name, but he declined, saying he wa s “just passing through town” and wanted “to stay anonymous.”–3– At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial co urt made oral findings consistent with the evidence and recessed for two weeks. At the subsequent hearing, appellant argued the anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspici on for the investigatory detention and relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Florida v. J.L , 529 U.S. 266 (2000). The trial court agreed and granted the motion to suppress. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review. Martinez v. State , 348 S.W.3d 919, 922–23 (Tex. Crim . App. 2011). We afford almost total deference to a trial judge’s determin ation of historical fact s and mixed questions of law and fact that rely upon the credibility of a witness. Id . We review de novo pure questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact that do not depend on credibility determinations. Id

. When, as here, the trial court makes explicit fa ct findings, we determin e whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the tr ial court’s ruling, supports these findings. State v. Kelly , 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We then review the trial court’s legal ruling de novo unless the explicit fact findings supported by the reco rd are also dispositive of the legal ruling. Id

. Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless de tention of a suspect that amounts to less than a full-blown custodial arrest must be ju stified at least by a r easonable suspicion. State v. Elias , 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). A police officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a person if he has specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him reasonably to conclude that the pe rson detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Id . In determining whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain, we look at the totality of the circumstances through an objective lens, disregarding the officer ’s subjective intent. Matthews v. State , 431 S.W.3d 596, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although some circumstances may seem innocent in isolation, they will support an–4– investigatory detention if their combination l eads to a reasonable conclusion that criminal activity is afoot. Id. An anonymous tip alone is seldom sufficie nt to establish reas onable suspicion. Id

. Reasonable suspicion is dependent not only on the content of the information possessed by law enforcement, but also on its reliability. Id. To support reasonable suspicion, an anonymous tip requires some indicia that the caller is credib le or that his information is reliable. Id

. Since the trial court’s ruli ng, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014), which consid ered the sufficiency of an anonymous tip to conduct an investigatory stop. In Navarette , a 911 caller, presumed by the court to be anonymous, repor ted that a vehicle ran her car off the road. The caller provided the location as well as a descripti on of the vehicle and license pl ate number. The 911 dispatcher relayed the information to officers. 134 S. Ct. at 1686–87. About eighteen minutes later, officers spotted a vehicle some nineteen miles south of the location reported in the tip. Id . at 1689. The officers pulled the truck over. As th ey approached, they smelled marijuana and a subsequent search revealed 30 pounds of marijuana in the bed of the truck. Id . at 1687. The court held the anonymous tip contained adequate indicia of reliability to support reasonable suspicion because the content of th e tip indicated it (1) was based on eyewitness knowledge, which “lends significant support to the tip’s reliability”; (2) was contemporaneously made, which is “especially trustworthy becau se ‘substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negate the likelihood of deliberate or c onscious misrepresentati on’”; and (3) was made to the 911 emergency system, which “has some f eatures that allow for identifying and tracing callers, and thus provide some safeguards ag ainst making false reports with immunity.”
Navarette , 134 S. Ct. at 1689–90; see Matthews , 431 S.W.3d at 604 n.29.–5– The court distinguished its decision from that in J.L., the case relied on by appellee below and on appeal. J.L. involved an anonymous caller who re ported to the polic e that a young black male, wearing a plaid shirt, wa s standing at a particular bus stop and was carrying a gun. 529 U.S. at 268. The court identified two critical distin ctions between the Navarette tip and the J.L. tip: (1) the J.L. tip “provided no basis for concluding that the tipster had actually seen the gun” and (2) there was no indication that the J.L. tip was made contemporaneously with criminal activity or under the stress of excite ment caused by a startling event. Id . at 1689. Having reviewed the evidence and the tria l court’s oral findings , we conclude the anonymous call leading to appellan t’s detention contained sufficien t indicia of re liability to provide officers with reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. As in
Navarette , the tip was an eyewitness account of a potentially dang erous situation, was made contemporaneously with the event, and was made through the 911 system. As found by the trial court, the tipster called 911 in the early mo rning hours and reported a man was publicly “displaying” a gun on the parking lot of a gas station. The ga s station was open for business and was located near a nightclub in a high-crime area. As officers went to the scene, the tipster stayed on the line with the 911 disp atch and provided other informa tion in real time. The tipster gave information on the man’s attire and location as well as specific detail s on his vehicle, such as make, color, the lack of a front license pl ate, blue flashing headlights and how the car was parked. Police verified these de tails before making the stop. After the stop, one of the officers contacted the tipster, who verified the officers we re investigating the correct vehicle. Because we conclude the officers had reas onable suspicion to conduct an investigat ory stop, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. We sustain the State’s sole issue.–6– We reverse the trial court’s orders and rema nd these causes for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 140278F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
No. 05-14-00278-CR V. JARQUIS D. JACKSON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB13-62072. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Evans and Stod dart participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment entered January 21, 2015.–8– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant No. 05-14-00279-CR V. JARQUIS D. JACKSON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB13-62071. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Evans and Stod dart participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings cons istent with this opinion.
Judgment entered January 21, 2015.