Segura v. State

• Decision Date: 30 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 05-91-00279-CR,05-91-00279-CR
• Citation: 826 S.W.2d 178
• Parties: Santiago SEGURA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 178

826 S.W.2d 178

Santiago SEGURA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 05-91-00279-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Dallas.

Jan. 30, 1992.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1992.

Discretionary Review Refused

June 24, 1992.

Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.

April E. Smith, Dallas, for appellee.

Before BAKER, THOMAS and CHAPMAN, JJ.

OPINION

BAKER, Justice.

Appellant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. In accordance with a plea bargain between appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to 365 days in jail, probated for twenty-four months, assessed a fine of $400, and ordered restitution of $2000. Appellant's sole point of error is that his arrest was unlawful and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State charged appellant by information with DWI. Before trial, he filed a motion to suppress all evidence. He contended his arrest violated provisions of the United States and Texas constitutions. He further contended that article 38.23(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure bars admission of the evidence. After a suppression hearing, the trial court denied the motion.

Appellant then entered a plea of no contest to the charge. His no contest plea was based on his reservation of the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress.

THE LEGAL ISSUE

In one point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence because the State did not show probable cause for his arrest. In his brief, in one paragraph under the sole point of error, appellant argues his arrest was unlawful because it was contrary to the provisions of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Texas Constitution. He also argues the trial court should have granted his motion and excluded the evidence under Texas statutory law. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 38.23 (Vernon Supp.1992).

To make a valid warrantless arrest, the officer had to have probable cause to arrest appellant for either DWI or public intoxication.

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

1. Multifarious Point

By combining more than one contention in a single point of error, an appellant risks rejection on the ground that he presents nothing for review. See Sterling v. State, 800 S.W.2d 513, 521 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 697 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); TEX.R.APP.P. 74(f).

2. Briefing Constitutional Issues

Attorneys, when briefing constitutional questions, should carefully separate federal and state issues into separate grounds and provide a substantive analysis or argument on each ground. If counsel does not sufficiently distinguish state and federal constitutional grounds, the reviewing court may overrule the ground as multifarious. Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d 681, 690-91 n. 23 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); De Blanc v. State, 799 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); McCambridge v. State, 712 S.W.2d 499, 502 n. 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

3. Appellant's Argument

Appellant argues that his arrest was unlawful. He claims the arrest was unlawful because it violated the United States and Texas constitutions. Appellant's argument combines both federal and state constitutional grounds in one point of error. The argument does not provide a substantive analysis or argument on each separate ground. Because the argument does not sufficiently distinguish between federal and state constitutional grounds, the point is multifarious. Heitman, 815 S.W.2d at 690-91 n. 23; McCambridge, 712 S.W.2d at 501-02 n. 9. However, we will consider the merits of appellant's complaint. See TEX.R.APP.P. 83; see also Davis v. State, 817 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

1. Standard of Review

At a suppression hearing, the trial judge is the sole trier of fact. The court is the judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). We do not engage in our own factual review. We decide whether the record supports the trial court's findings. If the record supports the trial court's findings, we are not at liberty to disturb them. We only consider whether the trial court improperly applied the law to the facts. See Romero, 800 S.W.2d at 543.

2. The Applicable Law

a. A Warrantless Arrest

As a general rule, police officers must always get an arrest warrant before taking someone into custody. De Jarnett v. State, 732 S.W.2d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). There are exceptions to this rule. We strictly construe exceptions to the warrant requirement. De Jarnett, 732 S.W.2d at 349. One exception is article 14.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This article provides (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(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 (Vernon 1977). To justify a warrantless arrest, the State has the burden to prove probable cause existed when the officer made the arrest. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Roberts v. State, 545 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).

b. Probable Cause

(1) The Federal Standard--The Fourth Amendment

Probable cause for an arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant in a person of reasonable caution the belief that a person has or is committing an offense. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949); United States v. Woolery, 670 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir.1982). When dealing with probable cause, we deal with probabilities. The probabilities are not technical considerations but rather factual and practical ones of every day life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act. A showing of probable cause requires less evidence than is necessary to support a conviction. See United States v. Ashcroft, 607 F.2d 1167, 1170 (5th Cir.1979).

When determining probable cause, we must take into account the experience of the peace officer. Conduct innocent in the eyes of the untrained may carry an entirely different message to the experienced or trained observer. See United States v. Clark, 559 F.2d 420, 424 (5th Cir.1977). The peace officer need not personally observe overt criminal activity to have probable cause. The observation of unusual activity for which there is no legitimate logical explanation can be the basis for probable cause. See United States v. Alexander, 559 F.2d 1339, 1343 (5th Cir.1977).

Probable cause is not itself a fact required to be shown by the evidence; rather, it is a conclusion that may or may not be reasonably deduced from the circumstances surrounding the facts adduced. See Campbell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 154, 158 (Tex.App.--Austin 1982), pet. ref'd per curiam, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); see also Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 175-176, 69 S.Ct. at 1310-1311.

(2) The State Standard--Article I, Section 9, Texas Constitution

When we analyze and interpret article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, we are not bound by United States Supreme Court decisions considering the comparable fourth amendment issue. See Heitman, 815 S.W.2d at 690. Our Court of Criminal Appeals tells us that state constitutions cannot subtract from the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, but a state constitution can provide citizens additional rights. ¹ We must analyze the rights of Texas citizens by recognizing that the United States Supreme Court decisions represent the minimum protection that Texas must afford its citizens. The federal constitution sets the floor for individual rights; state constitutions establish the ceiling. Heitman, 815 S.W.2d at 690; Le Croy v. Hanlon, 713 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Tex.1986).

Under state law, to determine whether probable cause for arrest exists, we must evaluate the material facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest. We evaluate whether the arrest was based upon the personal observations of the arresting officer sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the person to be arrested is committing an offense. See Britton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 685, 689 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (op. on reh'g); TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 14.01 (Vernon 1977). Probable cause is a conclusion that the trier of fact may infer from all the circumstances made by the facts adduced. The evidence necessary to establish probable cause for arrest need not rise to the level of proof essential to a determination of guilt. Britton, 578 S.W.2d at 689.

THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

1. Appellant's Contentions

Appellant contends he was not subject to arrest for DWI because the arresting officer did not see him driving his pickup truck. Appellant also argues that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for public intoxication because the record does not show that he was intoxicated to a degree where he might have been a danger to himself or another. Finally, appellant contends the place where he was arrested was a public place so the officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for being in a suspicious place and under such circumstances that would show he was guilty of a felony or breach of the peace.

2. The State's Contentions

The State argues the record shows appellant committed the offense of public intoxication within the arresting officer's view. Alternatively, the State argues the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest appellant because he was found in a suspicious place and under circumstances that showed appellant was guilty of a breach of the peace.

THE...