Green v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-87-00232-CR,05-87-00232-CR |
| Citation | 744 S.W.2d 313 |
| Parties | Anthony Carl GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kathleen C. Decker, Dallas, for appellant.
Michael A. Klein, Dallas, for appellee.
Before WHITHAM, McCLUNG and STEWART, JJ.
Anthony Carl Green appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Punishment was assessed at five years imprisonment. Prior to his plea of guilty, appellant filed a motion to suppress which the trial court denied. Appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his unlawful detention. We agree; hence we reverse and remand.
The record from the suppression hearing reflects that a police officer first observed appellant's car parked in a cafeteria parking lot shortly after the cafeteria closed for the night. A woman parked her car beside appellant's and entered the passenger side of his car. About two minutes later she left the car and drove away in her own vehicle. A second car then pulled up beside appellant and the driver entered appellant's car.
The officer became suspicious, at this point, and approached the vehicles. Appellant and the other occupants got out of the car as they saw the officer approaching. The officer asked the men for identification and asked the appellant whether he could search the car. Testimony in the record conflicts as to appellant's reply; nevertheless, the officer conducted a search and found cocaine in a blue bag inside a shave kit on the floorboard of the car. The officer then arrested appellant.
Appellant contends, in his sole point of error, that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that a crime had occurred or was occurring; thus, he could not lawfully detain the appellant. We agree. If the facts of this case were sufficient grounds for a temporary detention, every person who meets a friend in a parking lot to exchange football tickets or engage in a brief conversation would be subject to police investigation. Where the events observed are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity, a detention based on those events is unlawful. Johnson v. State, 658 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
The State asserts that the appellant has no standing to challenge the validity of the search because he did not prove he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. The court of criminal appeals, in Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1984),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Leggions
...friend * * * to exchange football tickets or engage in a brief conversation would be subject to police investigation." Green v. State, 744 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Tex.App.1988). We would be giving the police "implicit authorization to create and apply an inferior set of rights to individuals in hi......
-
Wright v. State, 03-97-00231-CR
...Paso 1996, no pet.); Metoyer v. State, 860 S.W.2d 673, 677 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1993, pet. ref'd); Green v. State, 744 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd). Typically, a passenger without a possessory interest in an automobile lacks standing to complain of its search because......
-
Riley v. State
...in detaining appellant because his actions were as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity"); Green v. State, 744 S.W.2d 313, 314 (Tex.App. 1988) (reversing denial of motion to suppress where police observed two cars in the parking lot of a closed cafeteria where driver ......
-
People v. Cooper
...separately entered a defendant's car while his car was parked in a business parking lot after the close of business. (Green v. State (Tex.Ct.App. 1988) 744 S.W.2d 313, 314.) The court explained that if those bare facts were sufficient to support a detention "every person who meets a friend ......