Azzam v. State
| Docket Number | 13-22-00370-CR |
| Decision Date | 31 August 2023 |
| Parties | FERNANDO AHMAD AZZAM A/K/A FERNANDEO AHAMID AZZAM A/K/A FERNANDEO AHAMD AZZAM, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2 (b).
On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court of Lavaca County Texas.
Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña
Appellant Fernando Ahmad Azzam a/k/a Fernandeo Ahamid Azzam a/k/a Fernandeo Ahamd Azzam appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. By two issues, Azzam argues the evidence in this case was illegally obtained because:
(1) the traffic stop was invalid, and (2) it was "a product of an illegal warrantless search based on the totality of the circumstances[.]" We affirm.
Azzam was indicted for possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one, namely methamphetamine, in an amount more than one gram but less than four grams. See Tex Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c). On June 15 2021, Azzam filed a motion to suppress, alleging the traffic stop "was without probable cause," the State had the burden of proving "probable cause," and the officer's "search exceeded the lawful search and seizure scope of the Fourth Amendment."
At the hearing, Officer Austin Hannah with the Hallettsville Police Department testified that while he was on duty on January 9, 2020, he observed Azzam's vehicle "turned completely off the road real quick and it came right down the side." Officer Hannah followed Azzam's vehicle, and he noticed Azzam commit a traffic violation by signaling a right turn "about five feet before the turn." See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.104(b) (setting out that when approaching a stop sign, a driver must signal a right turn within 100 feet of an intersection). Officer Hannah's dash cam video was admitted into evidence, showing that Azzam activated his turn signal as he was within a few feet of the stop sign- consistent with Officer Hannah's testimony.
Officer Hannah testified that when he initiated the traffic stop, Azzam immediately exited his vehicle, which "draws all kinds of alarms for [police officers]" because from his experience, individuals do that because "they are walking away from the vehicle because there's something inside of that vehicle that they want to distract us from." The video from Officer Hannah's dash cam showed that Azzam parked his vehicle in a parking space and exited his vehicle. Officer Hannah instructed Azzam to reenter his vehicle. Officer Hannah approached Azzam, informed him the reason for the traffic stop, and requested Azzam's driver's license and insurance. Azzam did not produce his driver's license, giving Officer Hannah his name and date of birth instead. Officer Hannah performed several unsuccessful warrant searches.
Eventually, Officer Hannah completed the warrant check, returned to Azzam's vehicle, and questioned why Azzam was driving the opposite way from Wells Fargo when Azzam stated that Wells Fargo was his destination. After an explanation from Azzam, Officer Hannah asked Azzam if he had anything illegal in the vehicle, which Azzam denied. According to Officer Hannah, something "seemed off the way [Azzam] was acting" because "[h]e kept digging around in the center console," and "he would kind of glance up," but he "really wouldn't give me his full contact." Officer Hannah stated that Azzam "seemed like he was nervous" by his presence.
Officer Hannah then asked, "Do you care if I check and make sure?" Azzam's response is inaudible from the video, but Officer Hannah testified that Azzam consented to the search. Azzam began gathering his things and proceeded to exit his vehicle. Officer Hannah then responded, "That's okay," and explained he wanted to search the vehicle due to Azzam's behavior. Azzam responded that he was nervous. Officer Hannah stated that initially he wanted to give Azzam a warning for the violation but then "when [he] picks up on these clues it just makes [him] think something else might be going on in the car."
The video shows that Officer Hannah again asked Azzam "you don't care if I check [the vehicle?]" Again, Azzam's response is inaudible, but Officer Hannah immediately says, "Okay," in response. Azzam approached the vehicle, and Officer Hannah instructed him to step back so that Officer Hannah could perform his search. Azzam then stated, Officer Hannah responded,
Azzam showed Officer Hannah how to unlock the doors and open the center console. Officer Hannah searched the interior of the vehicle and the glove compartment. Officer Hannah informed Azzam he was almost done and asked Azzam how to open the trunk. Azzam approached Officer Hannah, and Officer Hannah asked Azzam, "Can you pop it for me?" In response, Azzam opened the trunk. In the trunk, Officer Hannah located a black bag with an uncapped syringe containing a dark substance "mixed with blood." Azzam approached Officer Hannah and informed him that the needle is his and the content in the syringe is medication. Officer Hannah instructed Azzam to step back and continued the search, rummaging through the bag.
When Officer Hannah asked Azzam if the content in the syringe would test positive for methamphetamine, Azzam responded, Azzam then admitted it was methamphetamine when Officer Hannah stated he would test the substance. Officer Hannah ultimately found another needle with a clear substance inside and a clear baggy containing a white crystalline substance that resembled methamphetamine. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. This appeal followed.
"We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under a bifurcated standard of review." Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 189-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). "[W]e afford almost complete deference to the trial court in determining historical facts," but "we review de novo whether the facts are sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion in a case." Id. at 190. When, as here, the trial court does not make explicit findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and presume that the court made implicit findings of fact supported by the record. Id. A trial court's ruling should not be reversed unless it is arbitrary, unreasonable, or outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. State v. Cortez, 543 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). We may uphold the trial court's ruling if it is supported by the record and correct under any theory of law applicable to the case. Id.
We cannot ignore indisputable video evidence, see State v. Duran, 396 S.W.3d 563, 570-71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), but we defer to the trial court when video evidence does "not indisputably refute the trial court's finding." State v. Gobert, 275 S.W.3d 888, 892 n.13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). When indisputable video evidence is conclusive, "then any trial-court findings inconsistent with that conclusive evidence may be disregarded as unsupported by the record, even when that record is viewed in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling." Miller v. State, 393 S.W.3d 255, 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Tucker v. State, 369 S.W.3d 179, 187 (Tex Crim App 2012) (Alcala, J, concurring)).
By his first issue, Azzam argues the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because "there was no probable cause for the traffic stop."
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). These constitutional protections extend to investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of a traditional arrest. Ramirez-Tamayo v. State, 537 S.W.3d 29, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, (2002)). A warrantless traffic stop by law enforcement personnel to address traffic violations constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and is tantamount to a temporary detention; therefore, the traffic stop must be justified and supported by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984).
A police officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a person when the officer has specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from such facts, would lead the officer to reasonably conclude that the detained person is, was, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Ramirez-Tamayo, 537 S.W.3d at 36. Under this standard, we consider whether there was an objectively justifiable basis for the detention. Id. We look to the totality of the circumstances in assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion and consider whether the officer who detained the person had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting wrongdoing. Id.
As relevant here, § 545.104(b) of the transportation code reads as follows: "An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn." Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.104(b).
Azzam asserts that "[he] signaled a turn while at a stop sign," and only "[a]fter coming to a complete stop he turned as indicated by his turn signal." Although Azzam argues that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial