Cronin v. State, No. 03-04-00266-CR (TX 9/23/2005), 03-04-00266-CR.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-04-00266-CR.,03-04-00266-CR. |
| Parties | DAVID ALLEN CRONIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Comal County, 22nd Judicial District, No. CR2003-373, Honorable Jack H. Robison, Judge Presiding.
Reversed and Remanded.
Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices B. A. SMITH and PEMBERTON: OPINION BY Justice B. A. SMITH; Dissenting Opinion by Justice Pemberton.
David Cronin appeals a judgment against him, resulting from a guilty plea, for felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112 (West 2003). In his sole issue, Cronin challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the arresting officer lacked "reasonable suspicion" to stop him. See U.S. Const., amend. IV; Tex. Const. art. I, § 9; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981); Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Schwartz v. State, 635 S.W.2d 545, 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On June 25, 2003, at about 1:30 a.m., Officer Gayleen Anderson of the New Braunfels Police Department was patrolling west on FM 306. On her right was a restaurant, Doug's Barbeque. The restaurant has a parking lot in front of it, picnic tables on the right side as one faces it, and a dumpster on the left, all on pavement. Behind the restaurant is an open field. Through the field, in a semi-circle around the back of the restaurant, runs a gravel driveway, and there is a storage shed between the gravel driveway and the restaurant. Officer Anderson testified that she was familiar with the layout of the property and had patrolled the area previously, and she provided a depiction of the property layout that was admitted into evidence at trial.
As she approached the intersection with Hunter Road, Officer Anderson saw a white and red Ford truck with a camper shell slowly driving out of the parking lot from the direction of the rear of the building of restaurant, which had been closed for several hours. There were no other vehicles in the parking lot. The truck appeared to come from behind the building, then turned eastbound on FM 306.
Officer Anderson had never seen vehicles in the parking lot after the restaurant closed. She had responded to alarms at a nearby business about five weeks earlier.1 She was not aware of any other reports of criminal activity in that area in the meantime. She decided to "follow the vehicle and stop it because it was just very suspicious why he was there." She explained:
[j]ust the time, the place, it was . . . about 1:30 in the morning. It was dark. The business had been closed for some time. What were they doing? Jacks had windows broken twice. I made the reports. And I wanted to find out what exactly the subject—what the vehicle was doing there, see what their reason for it [was].
She further testified concerning her purpose for the stop: "Mainly I just wanted to find out his purpose for being in the parking lot, identify who he was, and if everything checked out, he would be cut loose."
After Officer Anderson decided to stop the truck, she made a u-turn at the Hunter Road intersection, caught up to the truck, and pulled it over as it approached the frontage road for Interstate 35. She had not observed any traffic violations at that point. After stopping the truck, she approached the truck and asked the driver, Cronin, for his license and proof of insurance. Cronin told her that his license was expired and that he did not have insurance. She then noticed that his registration sticker was partially torn. She confirmed that his license had expired and then placed him under arrest. Officer Bill Spence conducted an inventory search of the truck and discovered methamphetamine and marijuana.
Cronin was indicted for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. See Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112. Cronin filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his truck. During the suppression hearing, Cronin orally amended his motion to challenge only the articulable reasonable suspicion for his detention. At the hearing, Anderson, Spence, Cronin and Cronin's girlfriend, Lesli Byers, testified. Cronin denied driving in the parking lot.
The district court denied the motion to suppress and entered findings of fact, agreeing with Officer Anderson's version of the events. It also entered a conclusion of law that "reasonable suspicion existed to detain [Cronin] when [he] drove his vehicle slowly from behind a business that had been closed for a period of time in an area in which there had been recent criminal activity." Cronin then pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, and the district court assessed his punishment at five years' confinement in the penitentiary, probated for five years, and a fine of $2,500.
In his only issue, Cronin challenges the district court's conclusion that Anderson had reasonable suspicion to detain him. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22; Garcia, 43 S.W.3d at 530. In particular, Cronin argues the district court erred in finding that Officer Anderson's testimony provided specific, articulable facts which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-2; Viveros v. State, 828 S.W.2d 2, 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
The appropriate standard for reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts and reviewing de novo the court's application of the law. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The district court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and it may choose to believe or disbelieve any or all of a witness's testimony. Laney v. State, 117 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Alvarado v. State, 853 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
We must sustain the district court's ruling if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. State v. Gray, 158 S.W.3d 465, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (quoting State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)); Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In this case, the district court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. We give almost total deference to the district court in reviewing findings of fact because the district court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). However, we review de novo the district court's application of law to those facts when the conclusion, such as the existence of reasonable suspicion, does not turn on witness credibility. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697-98 (1996); Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 87.
A warrantless automobile stop is a Fourth Amendment seizure analogous to a temporary detention, and it must be justified by reasonable suspicion. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436-37 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). The reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances at its inception and will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead her to conclude that the person detained actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Hernandez, 983 S.W.2d at 869. These facts must amount to more than a mere hunch or suspicion. Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Williams v. State, 621 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). This standard is an objective one—there need only be an objective basis for the stop. Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The subjective intent of the officer conducting the stop is irrelevant. Id. The burden is on the State to elicit testimony of sufficient facts to create a reasonable suspicion. Id.; see also Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (). We look only at those facts known to the officer at the inception of the stop—a stop or search unlawful at its inception may not be validated by what it turns up. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963).
Mere presence in a high-crime area is not enough to justify a stop. In Gurrola v. State, for example, police received a report of a fight in the parking lot of an apartment complex in a high-crime area. 877 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). When the investigating officer arrived, he observed four individuals engaged in what appeared to be an argument. Id. The officer ordered them to his patrol car where he performed a pat-down search, finding a gun and drugs. Id. The court of criminal appeals found the detention unjustified because a defendant's mere presence in a high-crime area may not serve as the basis for an investigative stop. Id. at 303.
Likewise, an officer's mere subjective...
To continue reading
Request your trial