Court Opinion

ID: 9779458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:51:15.418346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.049314
License: Public Domain

BAIRD, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority engages in a hyper-technical review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. While such occurrences are increasingly common, it is nevertheless disconcerting to watch a majority of this Court misconstrue our own precedent. Because the majority does nothing more than substitute its judgment for that of the Court of Appeals, I respectfully dissent.
I. The Facts
Appellant was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. The arresting officers, Daniel Rosales and Greg Flowers, and appellant testified at the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Rosales testified he was assigned to undercover narcotics and vice investigations when he arrested appellant. On January 9, 1990, Rosales received information from an informant that appellant was to purchase methamphetamine. The informant further informed Rosales that appellant would return to his home after the purchase to package the methamphetamine into smaller quantities for re-sale.
Rosales and Flowers were acquainted with appellant and set up surveillance across the street from the duplex where appellant lived. Approximately 30 minutes later appellant and his companion arrived. Rosales and Flowers approached and asked appellant whether he was “holding.” Appellant responded in the negative. Rosales again asked appellant if he was “holding” and appellant replied, “You can check me.” Rosales then performed a search of appellant’s outer clothing and pockets which revealed no contraband. From his conversations with appellant on prior occasions, Rosales knew that a method of concealing narcotics was to place plastic baggies of drugs against the skin because they could not be felt in a “pat down” search. Rosales asked appellant if they could go inside the duplex so Rosales could check underneath appellant’s pants. Appellant consented, stating “[tjhere’s no problem with that.”
Inside the apartment, the officers secured the area by having appellant, his companion, and a roommate who was already inside the apartment sit on a couch in the living room. Appellant lowered his pants while Rosales searched for plastic baggies. Finding no contraband, Rosales next asked appellant to remove his shoes. When appellant removed his right shoe a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance fell out and appellant attempted to cover the baggie with his foot, pushing it under the couch. Rosales recovered the baggie which contained methamphetamine.
On cross-examination Rosales testified he did not attempt to obtain a search warrant because he did not believe he had probable cause to search appellant. Rosales stated appellant was not under arrest when he and Flowers approached appellant and that appellant was free to walk away. Rosales stated he and Flowers did not display their guns until after they entered the duplex, at which time Flowers drew his gun to secure the area.
Flowers’ testimony was similar to Rosales. Inside the apartment, Flowers secured the area and observed Rosales search appellant. Flowers stated that he drew his gun for security reasons when they entered the apartment but he kept the gun at his side as Rosales searched appellant. Flowers saw something fall from appellant’s shoe and observed appellant attempt to cover it with his foot.
Appellant testified he lived in the duplex with three other persons. When Rosales and Flowers initially approached him outside the duplex, appellant assumed he was under ar*499rest. Appellant stated Flowers had his gun drawn when the officers first confronted him and asked if he was holding narcotics. Appellant denied having narcotics and Rosales searched his clothing. Appellant did not expressly consent to be searched and did not feel he could have walked away from the officers. After patting down appellant and checking his pockets, Rosales said, “Well, let’s go inside and pull a strip search.” They entered the apartment and Flowers, gun still drawn, closed the door. At that point appellant asked, ‘What would stop me from running away if I was holding drugs on me?” Rosales replied, ‘We could have stopped you like that.” Rosales instructed appellant to pull his pants down and appellant complied. Finding no contraband, Rosales then instructed appellant to take his shoes off. After appellant removed his shoe, Rosales spotted a plastic baggie containing drugs under the couch close to where appellant was sitting. Appellant picked up the baggie and handed it to Rosales, who then handcuffed appellant. On cross-examination appellant stated he never gave the officers his consent to search him or his apartment.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge denied appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence and appellant appealed.
II. The Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals held the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of appellant based on the information supplied by the informant. DuBose, 864 S.W.2d at 660 (citing Johnson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.Cr.App.1983)). Appellant was not in custody at this point and therefore, in order to justify a warrantless search, the State had the burden of proving appellant consented to a search and that his consent was “voluntarily given and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” Ibid, (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2068, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)). The Court of Appeals concluded the record supported the trial judge’s finding that the initial outer search was consensual. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals next considered whether the search of appellant’s shoes exceeded the scope of appellant’s consent to be searched inside the apartment. Ibid. Relying upon Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991), the Court stated, “[t]he test for whether the scope of consent to search has been exceeded asks what a reasonable person would have expected the search to include ... Therefore, the question in this case is what would a reasonably prudent officer have understood appellant’s consent to mean.” DuBose, 864 S.W.2d at 660-661. Because Rosales requested only to search under appellant’s pants, the Court determined appellant limited his consent to a search under his pants, but not to his shoes. Id., at 661. The Court further determined appellant did not subsequently consent voluntarily to the search of his shoes because one of the officers had a drawn weapon when Rosales instructed appellant to remove his shoes. Id. (citing Weed v. United States, 340 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir.1965); and, Lowery v. State, 499 S.W.2d 160, 168 (Tex.Cr.App.1973)). The Court of Appeals concluded the State failed to prove appellant’s consent was freely and voluntarily given and, therefore, the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to suppress the evidence.
III. Arcila v. State
A.
In Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr. App.1992), we adopted a broad policy of deference to the courts of appeals.1 In formulating this policy, we explained:
... Like this Court, the courts of appeals are duty-bound to uphold the constitution and laws of this State and of the United States. So long as it appears they have discharged that duty conscientiously by impartial application of pertinent legal doctrine and fair consideration of the evi*500dence, it is our duty in turn to respect their judgments. Our principle role as a court of last resort is the caretaker of Texas law, not the arbiter of individual applications. When different versions of the law, including unsettled applications of the law to significantly novel fact situations, compete for control of an issue, it is finally the job of this Court to identify and elaborate which is to control thereafter. But, except under compelling circumstances, ultimate responsibility for the resolution of factual disputes lies elsewhere. See Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146, 152-154 (Tex.Cr.App.1990) (Courts of appeals are the final arbiters of fact questions); Meeks v. State, 692 S.W.2d 504, 510 (Tex. Cr.App.1985) (Voluntariness is a fact question).
[[Image here]]
Id., at 360-361 (footnote omitted).2 Thus, under Arcila we must determine whether the Court of Appeals fairly addressed the point of error raised, evaluated the point according to settled rules of law, accounted for all evidence relevant to the point of error and reached a conclusion adequately supported by the law and the evidence. Id., 834 S.W.2d at 361.
B.
In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 248-249, 93 S.Ct. at 2059, the Supreme Court set out the standard of review to determine whether a defendant’s consent to a police request to conduct a warrantless search is voluntary:
... when the subject of a search is not in custody and the State attempts to justify a search on the basis of his consent, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances ....
This standard, which directs a reviewing court’s attention to the totality of the circumstances surrounding a defendant’s purported consent, remains the correct legal standard. See, Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17, 23, 105 S.Ct. 409, 412, 83 L.Ed.2d 246 (1984); and, Brown v. State, 856 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).
In Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S.Ct. 1801, the Court explained that the standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is an objective one in the sense that it directs a court’s attention to what the typical person would have understood by the police officer’s request to search and purported consent by the defendant. Id., 500 U.S. at 249-253, 111 S.Ct. at 1803-1804. “The scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object.” Id., 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. at 1804. However, a defendant may limit the scope of the search to which he consents. Id., 500 U.S. at 251-253, 111 S.Ct. at 1804. In Jimeno, the Supreme Court held the defendant’s consent to a police officer’s request to “search his car” for narcotics extended to a search of the paper bags in the car which, in fact, contained narcotics. Id., 500 U.S. at 251-253, 111 S.Ct. at 1804. Explicit in the Court’s reasoning was the fact that the defendant failed to limit the scope of the officer’s search when it was objectively reasonable that a search of the car would include any closed containers within the car in which narcotics might be kept. Id., 500 U.S. at 251-253, 111 S.Ct. at 1804.
A review of the Court of Appeal’s opinion indicates that Court applied the correct legal principles to the facts of the case. Under Jimeno, the scope of a defendant’s consent is limited by the parties’ objective understanding of what area the search will include. Id., 500 U.S. at 249-253, 111 S.Ct. at 1803-1804. According to the Court of Appeals, Officer *501Rosales “asked appellant if they could go inside so Rosales could check underneath appellant’s pants.” DuBose, 864 S.W.2d at 657. Appellant consented to that search and lowered his pants so Rosales could check for plastic baggies stuck against appellant’s legs. The Court of Appeals found appellant’s consent to the search of his pants was very specific and narrow. Id., 864 S.W.2d at 660. Finding no narcotics Rosales then asked appellant to remove his shoes. The Court of Appeals stated: “The record does not reflect that additional consent was given when appellant was asked to remove his shoes.” Id., 864 S.W.2d at 661 (emphasis added).
The record supports the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that appellant had limited his consent to the outer body search and the search under his pants. The record also supports the Court of Appeals conclusion that appellant did not consent to the search of his shoes. The Court of Appeals adequately considered the facts in the record and the Court’s rebanee upon Officer Flowers’ drawn weapon as a determining factor is supported by the law. See, Lowery, 499 S.W.2d at 167-168; and, Paprskar v. State, 484 S.W.2d 731, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). The Court of Appeals conclusion that Rosales’ request to search appellant’s shoes was a separate request and was not included in appellant’s consent to cheek under his pants is reasonable and supported by the record and by Jimeno.
IV. The Majority Opinion
The majority holds the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by faffing “to afford deference to the trial court’s ruling.” Ante, 915 S.W.2d at 495. I do not bebeve this to be so. Indeed, after carefuby reading the opinion of the Court of Appeals, I am convinced that the only error was the failure to specificahy state: “we find the trial judge abused his discretion.” To fault the Court of Appeals for faffing to use the “magic words” is a hyper-technical review. But, regardless of the linguistics, this was the standard employed by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the opinion makes it clear that the Court of Appeals deferred to the trial judge. DuBose, 864 S.W.2d at 660 (“The trial court concluded that the entire search was consensual. The record supports this conclusion for the initial outer body search.”).
This case presents the precise situation Arcila is supposed to control. Ibid. Indeed, the majority’s “only basis for complaint here is that the ... Court of Appeals somehow managed to get it wrong.” Arcila, 834 S.W.2d at 361. The Courts of Appeals hold the power to review the decisions of the trial judges and it is improper for this Court to intervene when the Courts of Appeals do so. Instead, we should fobow the pobey of deference established in Arcila. To act as the majority does today is disrespectful to the courts of appeals and contrary to our own precedent. And, in the end, the majority does nothing more than substitute its judgment for that of the Court of Appeals. Ante, at 497, n. 6.
In this case, the Court of Appeals discharged its duty to fairly consider the evidence and conscientiously apply the pertinent legal doctrine. It is our duty in turn to respect the decision of the Court of Appeals. Because the majority does not, I dissent.
OVERSTREET, J., joins this opinion.

. Arcila, like the instant case, addressed the vol-untariness of a defendant's consent to a search. The Court of Appeals held that although Arcila's arrest was illegal, his consent was voluntary. Arcila v. State, 788 S.W.2d 587 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990). On discretionaiy review, we expressly declined to review the Court of Appeals’ factual determinations and instead, limited our review to that court's application of the law. Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992).

. All emphasis is supplied unless otherwise indicated.