Court Opinion

ID: 9772286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:13:08.222489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.329647
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the trial court effectively held that the State may arrest someone without probable cause in order to buy time to search his property with a drug dog. Simply put, that is not the law.
Based upon a tip from an anonymous informant and a police officer’s “familiarity” with appellant, at least two police officers began a stake-out of appellant’s white Ford Mustang. For approximately two hours they sat watching until he exited an apartment and entered the vehicle. Both officers testified that up until that time neither had seen him violate any law. Indeed, one went so far as to quip, at the suppression hearing, that if such a violation had been seen, he would have immediately arrested appellant.
Upon seeing appellant enter the Mustang, one of the two policemen drove his squad car behind appellant’s vehicle to block its egress. Appellant undoubtedly noticed this for he exited the car and closed its door. By that time, the two officers had also left their cars and began to approach their quarry. According to one of them, appellant “inquired what we wanted,” and the other stated that “we ... identified ourselves, and asked for a Consent to Search on [sic] the vehicle.” Appellant refused their request. Thereafter, the officers admitted to “grabb[ing]” appellant by each arm, informing him of his Miranda rights and placing him in the back seat of the squad car. So too did an officer acknowledge telling appellant that if he did not consent to the search, they would secure the presence of a drug dog to sniff the Mustang. This attempt at persuasion also failed to garner the desired response. So, the officers phoned someone with the “DEA Task Force.”
Approximately 45 to 60 minutes passed before a drug dog arrived at the scene with its handler. Throughout this time appellant sat locked in the rear seat of the police car. That appellant was not free to leave the scene went uncontested as did the fact that he could not even remove himself from the squad car. Indeed, the officers not only admitted as much but also testified that the rear windows were closed and could not be rolled down, that the front and rear seats were separated by a plexiglass “prisoner shield,” and that the inside handles of the rear doors were “removed to prevent escape of prisoners or anyone in the back.” In short, appellant was utterly at the mercy of his captors, and effectively jailed (though his jail had wheels).
Upon arrival of the drug dog, it was led to the Mustang. After sniffing the car, it alerted to the presence of drugs. With this information in hand, the two officers who originally grabbed appellant left to obtain a search warrant. However, appellant remained at the scene in the back seat of the police vehicle and under' the supervision of one or more uniformed policemen. Several hours *475passed before a warrant was obtained and the search performed.
Neither officer at the suppression hearing testified that they had probable cause to arrest appellant or to search his car. Again, they admitted that they had yet to see appellant commit any criminal act before they blocked his car, took hold of him, and locked him in the rear of the police car. Indeed, when asked if they initially curtailed his liberty “predicated alone upon ... this [tip from an] anonymous caller,” the testifying officer candidly replied “yes.” (emphasis added). So too did they acknowledge that the information garnered up to that point would not have authorized his arrest. Whether for this reason or some other, the State also avoided arguing that the policemen had probable cause to arrest appellant or search his car. Rather, the prosecutor contended that they had reasonable suspicion to believe crime was afoot. Thus, the officers were allegedly entitled to “detain” appellant while they obtained a drug dog to investigate further. The trial court agreed, as did the majority at bar, but I do not.
The type of investigative detention condoned by law “is one during which the police are allowed to briefly question a suspicious person respecting his identity, his reason for being in the area or location, and to make similar reasonable inquiries of a truly investigative nature.” Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407, 412 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); State v. Mora, 872 S.W.2d 808, 806 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1994, no pet.). Moreover, the amount of restraint contemplated and authorized is less than that encompassed in an arrest. Id. In other words, the duration and manner of the detention cannot smack of an arrest. And though I recognize that the line between a mere detention and an arrest is hardly black and white, I conclude that the totality of the circumstances at bar inescapably depict restraint tantamount to an arrest.
The officers first blocked appellant’s egress with their car; in Amores, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered such a tactic indicative of an arrest rather than a mere detention. Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d at 411. After blocking his egress, they physically grabbed him; that too, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals indicated arrest. Id. at 411 n. 7, citing, Hogan v. State, 631 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); accord Curry v. State, 699 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, pet. ref'd) (holding that it was reasonable to assume appellant was in custody and arrested when the officer “grabbed” appellant’s arm). So too did their placing appellant within the locked confines of the squad car, Carey v. State, 695 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1985, no pet.), and uttering few, if any, questions or comments to appellant during their purported investigation illustrate an arrest. Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d at 412; State v. Mora, 872 S.W.2d at 806. Aside from their identifying themselves, asking for consent to search, and threatening him with the use of a drug dog if he chose not to consent, the record illustrated that little else was said by the officers.
In Carey, this court held that “the action of [Officer] Dawson, acting under the badge of his authority after having advised appellant of the Miranda warnings, in putting appellant in the police car without telling him he was free to leave, amounted to a detention indistinguishable from an arrest.” Id. at 310-11. No less occurred here. So, unless I avoid the precedent of this very court, I cannot but hold that appellant was under arrest long before the dog appeared and provided the arresting officers with probable cause to search the vehicle. See De Jesus v. State, 917 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd) (stating that a “positive alert for narcotics made by a police canine establishes probable cause for an arrest"). Nor can I but hold that the resulting search was unreasonable given the illegality of appellant’s initial restraint.
Moreover, it is the type of the restrictions imposed upon appellant that distinguishes this case from United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). In the latter, the United States Supreme Court stated, in no uncertain words, that it dealt solely with the issue of time and its relationship to the reasonableness of the search. Id. at 683-85, 84 L.Ed.2d at 613-15. Sharpe had not asked it to consider the manner of his detention, only the duration. For this reason, the Court felt compelled to *476distinguish such cases as Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979) and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) which “focus[ed] ... primarily on facts other than the duration of the defendant’s detention.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 684, 105 S.Ct. at 1574, 84 L.Ed.2d at 614.1 Given this, I find Sharpe quite inapposite to the circumstances at bar. See United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that the amount of time lapsed did not render the search unreasonable given the absence of evidence indicating that the defendant was handcuffed or confined in a police car); United States v. Willis, 967 F.2d 1220 (8th Cir.1992) (holding the same).2
In sum, and regardless of how they are construed, the facts established that the police arrested appellant without probable cause in order to prevent his lawful departure and buy time to search his vehicle. There was no temporary detention in order to placate their suspicion of criminal activity; instead, they simply violated his right to be free of an unreasonable search and seizure. Thus, the evidence garnered as a result of the unlawful act was tainted and, therefore, inadmissible.

. Interestingly, in both Dunaway and Royer, the search was ultimately found illegal because of the type of detention suffered upon the defendant. In the former, the suspect was apprehended and taken to police headquarters for interrogation. In the latter, he was stopped in an airport, questioned, and then confined in a small room 40 feet from the spot of the initial stop and questioned again.

. Bloomfield is a case relied upon by the State here.