Lerma v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. PD–1229–16,PD–1229–16 |
| Citation | 543 S.W.3d 184 |
| Parties | Ernesto LERMA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
543 S.W.3d 184
Ernesto LERMA, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas
NO. PD–1229–16
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Filed: January 24, 2018
Rehearing Denied April 25, 2018
Stacey M. Soule, Austin, TX, for State.
Celina Leon, Law Office of Ralph M. Rodriguez, P.L.L.C., Corpus Christi, TX, for Appellant.
OPINION
Newell, J., delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Appellant, Ernesto Lerma, was charged with possession of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams, of cocaine. After the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress the cocaine, he pleaded guilty. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the officer's frisk of Appellant, made during an unjustifiably prolonged traffic stop, was not supported by reasonable suspicion. We disagree. We hold that the initial frisk was supported by reasonable suspicion and the original stop was not unduly prolonged. We will reverse the court of appeals.
Background
The only witness to testify at the suppression hearing was police officer Javier
Salinas, Jr. On the evening of November 2, 2014, Salinas was conducting a patrol of the streets of Corpus Christi. At 10:55 p.m. Salinas stopped a vehicle for failing to stop behind the line at a stop light and failing to use a turn signal at least 100 feet prior to the intersection. The traffic stop was recorded by a video camera; the stop lasted nine minutes from the time of the stop to the moment Appellant fled the scene on foot.
After pulling the vehicle over, Salinas approached the driver's side of the car. There were four occupants in the car: the driver, Appellant, who was in the front passenger seat, and a woman with an unrestrained baby on her lap in the back seat.1 Salinas asked the driver for his driver's license and insurance information, whether there were any weapons in the car, where the occupants were headed, and where they were coming from.
Salinas also asked Appellant whether he had any identification. Appellant replied that he did not have any identification on him. During this initial interaction Salinas observed Appellant moving his feet a lot, trying to reach his hands into his pockets, and moving his hands between the seats. Appellant appeared nervous and unsure of himself. These movements caused Salines to move to the passenger side of the vehicle to make sure that Appellant was not trying to grab a weapon. While Salinas was on the passenger side of the vehicle, the driver handed Salinas his driver's license and insurance paperwork. Salinas reviewed the insurance paperwork and gave it back to the driver, but kept the driver's license so he could later determine whether the driver had any outstanding warrants. Salinas also planned to check for warrants for the passengers and investigate the circumstances surrounding the unrestrained child in the vehicle. At this point, Salinas had determined that he would likely issue a warning to the driver if he remained cooperative, though he did not issue either a warning or a traffic citation at that time.
Salinas again asked Appellant if he had any identification. Again, Appellant said he did not. Salinas also asked Appellant why he was so nervous. Pursuant to his typical course of conduct, Salinas asked Appellant to exit the vehicle so he could make a proper identification of Appellant.2 Appellant hesitated and Salinas asked, "Is there a reason you don't want to come out or something?" Appellant then exited the car.
Salinas informed Appellant that he was going to conduct a pat-down and Appellant stated that he had a pocket knife.3 Salinas
retrieved the pocket knife, put it on the front passenger seat, and continued the pat-down. As Salinas patted Appellant down, Appellant "seemed to be guarding his pocket areas, trying to reach into his pockets." Salinas "felt what was consistent with cigars and a bag of some sort of soft substance inside," but Salinas did not retrieve those items from Appellant's pockets. Salinas explained that a pack of cigars was consistent with what police commonly see used to roll marijuana. Although he testified that he could not identify any particular drugs in Appellant's pockets based on the pat-down, Salinas believed that Appellant "had some sort of narcotics or some sort of illegal substance" on him. Salinas did not confront Appellant at that time, however, because Salinas was still alone, outnumbered, and Appellant was acting nervous.4 Having removed Appellant's pocket-knife, Salinas did not feel any additional weapons during the pat-down.
Salinas then asked Appellant for his name and birth date. Appellant replied that his name was "Bobby Diaz" and his birth date was September 22, 1984.5 Salinas asked Appellant when he was last arrested and Appellant replied "months ago." Salinas asked Appellant about the woman in the back seat of the vehicle and Appellant said the woman was the driver's girlfriend.
Another officer arrived on the scene at 10:59 p.m., four minutes after the initial stop. Salinas asked Appellant whether he had any weapons or anything illegal on his person and Appellant said that he did not. Salinas then asked "You okay if I check your pockets to make sure you don't got nothing on you?" Appellant replied "I'd rather you didn't." Salinas then asked Appellant for his name and birth date again; Appellant said Bobby Diaz, September 22, 1984. Salinas instructed Appellant to "chill out" and sit on the curb.
Salinas then went back to his patrol unit and ran the personal information Appellant had given him. At 11:00 p.m., five minutes after the initial stop, Salinas determined that Appellant did not match the physical description of the "Bobby Diaz," with a birth date of September 22, 1984, that he had obtained from his computer.6 Salinas then returned to Appellant and asked where he was from and when he had last "smoked weed." Appellant replied that it was "a while ago." Salinas told Appellant that he could smell marijuana on him. Appellant then admitted that he had smoked synthetic marijuana that day and that he had some on him. At 11:04 p.m., Salinas searched Appellant's pockets and found synthetic marijuana, at which point Appellant took off running. The officers chased Appellant and caught him about 15 seconds later.
After Appellant was arrested, he told Salinas that he was a habitual offender, "looking at 25 to life." Appellant admitted to the officers that he had a lot of crack on him, had a warrant for his arrest, and had lied about his name. The officers searched Appellant and recovered a bag of synthetic
marijuana and a "Tupperware bowl" containing 17 crack cocaine rocks. Appellant indicated that there was more cocaine in the vehicle. Salinas searched the vehicle, but did not find any more cocaine. After searching the vehicle, Salinas reinitiated contact with the driver and female passenger. The woman's friend brought a car seat to the scene for the unrestrained child and Salinas terminated the traffic stop without issuing a citation to the driver. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress without making findings of fact.
Court of Appeals
Applying our decision in St. George v. State,7 the court of appeals found that Officer Salinas did not have reasonable suspicion to justify conducting a Terry frisk of Appellant or to prolong the traffic stop.8 The court of appeals acknowledged that upon observing a traffic violation, Salinas was entitled to stop the vehicle, request the driver's license and insurance information from the driver, and conduct a computer check on that information.9 But the court of appeals held that Salinas did not have reasonable suspicion to investigate Appellant, the passenger of the vehicle.10
The court identified only three articulable facts it believed Salinas had knowledge of when he conducted the initial pat-down: (1) Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle that had just been stopped for two minor traffic infractions; (2) Appellant was "moving around on his feet a lot, trying to reach into his pocket," and was reaching in between the seats of the car; and (3) Appellant had no identification on him.11 The court found that these facts, when combined with rational inferences therefrom, could not reasonably lead to the conclusion that Appellant possessed a weapon, to justify the Terry frisk, or that Appellant was, or soon would be, engaged in criminal activity, to justify prolonging the traffic stop.12
The court noted that, as in St. George , although Appellant gave false identifying information, Salinas did not know the information was false at the time he performed the initial pat-down. The court dismissed the State's argument that St. George was distinguishable because in this case the investigation of the traffic stop had not concluded at the time of the pat-down, stating "that [Salinas] had already completed his investigation as to ‘the reason that [the driver] was stopped.’ "13 Having found that the pat-down and prolonged stop were not supported by reasonable suspicion, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to suppress.14
Standard of Review
We review a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lall v. State
...of pure questions of law, the application of the law to established facts, and the legal significance of those facts. Lerma v. State , 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ; Wade , 422 S.W.3d at 667. We also review de novo mixed questions of law and fact that are not dependent upon cr......
-
Tilghman v. State
... ... This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW "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, 18990 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (citing Furr v. State , 499 S.W.3d 872, 877 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) ); see Guzman v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 8889 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). "At a motion to suppress hearing, the trial judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of credibility ... ...
-
State v. Martinez
... ... State , 422 S.W.3d 661, 66667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Derichsweiler , 348 S.W.3d at 913. We review de novo the trial court's determination of pure questions of law, the application of the law to established facts, and the legal significance of those facts. Lerma v. State , 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ; Wade , 422 S.W.3d at 667 ; Derichsweiler , 348 S.W.3d at 913 ; Kothe v. State , 152 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing United States v. Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) ). We also review de ... ...
-
Carmona v. State
... ... In a motion-to-suppress hearing, the trial court stands as the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Lerma v. State , 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). We afford almost complete deference to the trial court in determining historical facts. Id. The trial court may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness's testimony, even if that testimony is not controverted, because the trial ... ...
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...such as the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, and run a computer check on that information. Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). An officer is also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...such as the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, and run a computer check on that information. Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). An officer is also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...such as the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, and run a computer check on that information. Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). An officer is also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...such as the driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, and run a computer check on that information. Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). An officer is also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop......