Placide v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 14-13-00725-CR,14-13-00725-CR |
| Parties | JASON MICHAEL PLACIDE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas
Appellant Jason Michael Placide appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. In two issues, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because (1) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him; and (2) his statement was made as a result of custodial interrogation and was inadmissible under article 38.22, section 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.
Appellant was indicted for possession of between one and four grams of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(c). Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress in which he argued that a Houston Police officer "broke into" his vehicle and searched the vehicle without consent. Appellant argued that "[a]ny controlled substances found in the vehicle" should be suppressed because the search was without a warrant and without probable cause. Appellant also sought suppression of "[a]ny other matters that the Court finds should be suppressed upon hearing of this motion." Appellant argued that the evidence should be suppressed because (1) the narcotics were not in plain view in the vehicle; and (2) the vehicle search was not incident to a lawful arrest.
At the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress Officer Joseph Little of the Houston Police Department testified that at approximately 4:00 a.m. on July 6, 2012, he was patrolling the north side of Houston in an area known for narcotics and crime. He received a dispatch call for a disturbance at an apartment complex located at 8034 Antoine. The 911 caller reported three or four African-American males using narcotics and loading guns while standing outside a white truck near a black Dodge Magnum. When Little arrived at the apartment complex he observed three African-American males standing outside of a white pickup truck near a black Dodge Magnum. He identified appellant as one of the men he saw that night. Because Little had received a report that the men were loading weapons, he detained all three men, handcuffed them, and placed them in separate patrol cars.
In conducting his investigation, Little shined a flashlight into the black Dodge Magnum, and observed narcotics on the car's console. Little saw a bag of marijuana and a bag of clear pills with no label on them. Little asked appellant if the black Dodge Magnum was his car, and appellant "admitted that that was his carand he had been driving it and he lives at the registered address." Appellant was arrested after the marijuana and pills were discovered in the vehicle. After appellant was arrested, officers found crack cocaine in the vehicle. The pills also tested positive for cocaine.
On cross-examination, Little testified that he did not know the identity of the 911 caller. The officers searched all three men, but did not find weapons.
Officer Matthew was also on the scene and testified to the same events.1 Matthew Little testified that the three men were detained because the call reported they were loading weapons. The men were handcuffed for officer safety and placed in the patrol cars so they could not flee the scene until the investigation was complete.
Appellant testified that the car belonged to his mother and he had no knowledge of drugs in the car. On cross-examination, appellant admitted more than one prior conviction for possession of controlled substances but could not remember an exact number of prior convictions. Appellant believed he was under arrest at the time he was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car.
During his closing statement, appellant's counsel argued that (1) appellant's statement that he owned the car should be excluded because he was under arrest and officers did not read his Miranda rights;2 and (2) the evidence should be excluded because the search was warrantless and not a proper inventory search incident to arrest. The State argued that the officers had reasonable suspicion of a threat to their safety as a result of the potential weapons reported in the police dispatch. Officers detained appellant and the other individuals for their safetywhile they conducted an investigation. The investigation revealed marijuana in plain view on the console of the black Dodge Magnum. The State further argued that appellant's argument about his statement fell outside the scope of the hearing.
The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law with the following preface:
During the aforementioned hearing, in addition to urging the suppression of physical evidence, the Defendant also urged suppression of certain oral statements, although such statements were NOT mentioned in the MOTION TO SUPPRESS. At the conclusion of said hearing, this Court denied the aforementioned MOTION TO SUPPRESS. This Court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW with regard to BOTH the physical evidence seized and the oral statements made by the Defendant, while not conceding that the consideration of such statements was properly before the Court based on the aforementioned MOTION TO SUPPRESS:
Findings of Fact
1. The Defendant, Jason Michael Placide, was charged by indictment in the above styled and numbered cause with the felony offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance.
2. Officers Joseph Little and Matthew Little of the Houston Police Department are credible and reliable witnesses who testified truthfully at the hearing regarding Defendant's Motion To Suppress Evidence.
3. On July 6, 2013, at approximately 4:00 a.m. a report was made to the Houston Police Department that three to four black males were standing in the area of a white truck and a black Dodge Magnum at 8034 Antoine, Houston, Harris County, Texas, in possession of narcotics and weapons.
4. On July 6, 2013, shortly after 4:00a.m., Officers Joseph Little and Matthew Little responded to the reported disturbance at 8034 Antoine, Houston, Harris County, Texas, involving three to four black males allegedly in possession of narcotics and weapons in the area of a white truck and a black Dodge Magnum.
6. When the officers arrived at 8034 Antoine, Houston, Harris County, Texas, they observed three black males in the area of a white truck, and a black Dodge Magnum within three parking spaces of the white truck, confirming several pieces of information from the report.
7. The officers briefly detained each of the three men, including the Defendant, Jason Placide, in order to safely investigate and ensure the continued presence of the suspects at the scene.
8. At the time the Defendant was detained, the scene of the investigation was not yet secure, and the officers could not be certain whether there were unsecured weapons in the area.
9. There was no significant show of force during the investigative detention.
10. As part of the detention, the Defendant was frisked for weapons, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a patrol car.
11. While conducting their brief investigation with the help of a third HPD officer, Officers Joseph Little and Matthew Little looked into the window of the black Dodge Magnum vehicle (with the aid of a 360 lumen flashlight) from outside the vehicle, and observed what they both believed to be marijuana, based on their training and experience.
12. The Defendant admitted to officers that the black Dodge Magnum was the vehicle he had been driving, and that he lived at the same address where the vehicle was registered.
13. The Defendant was arrested after the discovery and recovery of the marijuana, and after he was linked to the black Dodge Magnum through his statements.
1. The officer's testimony established specific, articulable facts (the confirmed details of the call, the nature of the high crime area, time of night, and presence of the suspects in suspicious circumstances) and reasonable inferences substantial enough to support reasonable suspicion that the suspects had been engaged in criminal activity.
4. The officers involved had probable cause to search the black Dodge Magnum, and the seizure of the narcotics without a warrant was lawful under the automobile exception.
5. Probable cause to arrest the Defendant did not exist prior to his statements linking him to the black Dodge Magnum.
6. The officers used only a minimal amount of force required to investigate, maintain the status quo, and ensure officer safety.
7. The statements of the Defendant in regards to his connection to the black Dodge Magnum were made during an investigative detention that had not evolved into custodial interrogation, and therefore are admissible pursuant to Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
We review a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Thomas v. State, 297 S.W.3d 458, 459 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd). We review the evidence in the light most...
To continue reading
Request your trial