Hafford v. State, 2-91-205-CR
| Decision Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-91-205-CR,2-91-205-CR |
| Citation | 828 S.W.2d 275 |
| Parties | Hershal HAFFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Earl R. Waddell, III, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Crim. Dist. Atty., C. Chris Marshall, Mark Stephens, and David Ward, Assts., Fort Worth, for appellee.
Before WEAVER, C.J., and FARRIS and LATTIMORE, JJ.
This is an appeal by Hershal Hafford, who was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, less than twenty-eight grams. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Vernon Pamph.1992). The appellant pled guilty to the offense charged and the court assessed punishment pursuant to a plea bargain at ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, running concurrently with a probation revocation. Hafford's sole point of error on appeal asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution; article one, section nine of the Texas Constitution; and articles 1.06 and 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
We affirm.
Officers Charles Davis and T.D. Ponikiewski of the Fort Worth Police Department were patrolling East Bessie Street on January 27, 1991, between 4:30 and 4:45 a.m. when they observed a car pulling over to the side of the road. The officers entered the vehicle's license plate number into their mobile data terminal. After discovering that the car had been reported stolen, the officers circled around and continued their surveillance of the vehicle.
Officer Davis got out of the patrol car and watched the now unoccupied vehicle from around a building. Then, three men approached and entered the car; after which Davis returned to the patrol car. Officer Davis temporarily lost sight of the stolen car and did not see one of the three men leave the car. The police officers then followed the car for approximately two and a half blocks before the stolen vehicle pulled into a residential driveway at which time Ponikiewski pulled in behind it. The officers approached the car and Officer Davis removed the passenger, Hafford, handcuffed him, and patted him down. Officer Ponikiewski also handcuffed the driver of the car. Officer Davis then observed a clear baggie which was sticking out of Hafford's pocket; the bag contained a green leafy substance. Hafford was also searched at the jail where a white rock substance was found in his shoe. The trial court determined that the police had made a legal arrest and denied Hafford's motion to suppress. Following the entry of the written order denying the motion to suppress, the appellant agreed to a plea bargain and pled guilty to possession of cocaine.
Hafford maintains in his sole point of error that the trial court erred in that it denied his motion to suppress the cocaine seized at the jail. First, we conclude after reviewing the record that the removal of Hafford from the car and the immediate handcuffing, prior to any reasonable questioning or request for identification, amounted to an arrest and not a mere detention. See Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407, 411-12 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). After this initial determination, the issue before this court involves the question of whether Officer Davis effectuated a legal arrest of Hafford and thereby properly averted suppression of the fruits of said arrest. Article 14.01(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 14.01(b) (Vernon 1977). A police officer may arrest an individual without a warrant only if there is probable cause. Adkins v. State, 764 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). Judge Onion, writing for the majority in Delgado v. State, reiterated:
The standard for the legality of a warrantless arrest is not equal to the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction. The standard is "probable cause," not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Delgado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 718, 720-21 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). The test for determining the existence of probable cause for a warrantless arrest is as follows:
Whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which (he) had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the arrested person had committed or was committing an offense.
Adkins, 764 S.W.2d at 785, and cases cited therein. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas stated in Lunde v. State that:
[T]he perceived events must be out of the ordinary, suspicious and tie a suspect with a criminal act. The individual's conduct cannot be as consistent with innocent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earle v. Atkinson
...for any offense committed in his presence or within his view. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 14.01(b); Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex.App.—Ft Worth 1992, writ ref'd), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 931, 113 S.Ct. 1313 (1993); Adkins v. State, 764 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). P......
-
Bell v. State
...Torres v. State, 825 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (remanded for reconsideration in light of Amores ); Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Brown v. State, 826 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (suspect was "arrested" when initia......
-
State v. Johnson
...The "totality of the circumstances" test applies for determining probable cause for warrantless arrests. Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, Hafford v. Texas, 507 U.S. 931, 113 S.Ct. 1313, 122 L.Ed.2d 700 (1993). Deputy Cisneros did n......
-
Harper v. Harris County, Tex.
...cause to believe that a serious offense has occurred or where he witnesses a violation of the law. Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1992, writ ref'd), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1313, 122 L.Ed.2d 700 (1993). The test for probable cause in Denholm's war......
-
Arrests
...598 (1976). A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant only if there is probable cause for the arrest. Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d ). Where officers find contraband during a Terry stop that establishes probable cause that the defenda......
-
Table of Cases
...860 at 864-65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), §20:96.9.4 Hafdahl v. State, 805 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), §13:55 Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d ), §1:21 Hafford v. State, 989 S.W.2d 439 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d ), §2:76 Haig......
-
Arrests
...598 (1976). A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant only if there is probable cause for the arrest. Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d ). Where officers find contraband during a Terry stop that establishes probable cause that the defendan......
-
Arrests
...598 (1976). A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant only if there is probable cause for the arrest. Hafford v. State, 828 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d ). Where officers find contraband during a Terry stop that establishes probable cause that the defenda......