Court Opinion

ID: 9660448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:14:02.649531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:19.598747
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge,
concurring.
The majority errs when it states that this case does not involve an investigative stop. Officer Kocik drove to the parking lot with the express purpose of investigating suspicious activity occurring there. He saw appellant and a companion seated in a pickup. He approached the two in the pickup because, in his own words: “. . . there are burglary calls that are almost on a regular basis, and with the hour of the morning and people moving around, I felt somebody needed to go investigate to find out who they were, why they were there, where they belonged.”
Contrary to the majority’s position, it does not matter in the least that appellant already was physically “stopped” when Ko-*874cik approached him. A stop occurs when someone is approached and detained for investigative purposes, whether that person is moving or stationary when approached. Furthermore, the majority is incorrect when it says that appellant was- not detained until the marihuana was discovered. Even if no marihuana had been discovered Kocik undoubtedly would have detained appellant in order to investigate his presence in the parking lot. This was an investigative stop. See Ebarb v. State, 577 S.W.2d 277 (Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing).
I concur in the result because Kocik had sufficient reason to make the stop. The apartment complex was in a high-crime area, and Kocik just had received from his sergeant a report of suspicious activity. It was 3:00 in the morning. When appellant opened the door in response to Koeik’s knock, Kocik smelled marihuana. By the light of his flashlight, in plain view, Kocik saw the butts of several hand-rolled cigarettes. At that point Kocik had probable cause to arrest appellant for possession of marihuana.
I concur in the result.