State v. Castleberry
| Decision Date | 02 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. PD–0354–10.,PD–0354–10. |
| Citation | 332 S.W.3d 460 |
| Parties | The STATE of Texasv.Cory CASTLEBERRY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John Loza, James Gerard McDermott, II, Asst. Public Defender, Dallas, for Appellant.Kim Schaefer, Asst. D.A., Dallas, Jeffrey L. Van Horn, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Early one May morning in 2008, Officer Barrett was patrolling an urban area where recent burglaries had occurred. He approached Cory Castleberry and another man walking behind a closed business and asked them for identification. Castleberry then reached for his waistband, and Officer Barrett told him to raise his hands. Castleberry reached in his waistband and threw down a baggie of cocaine. We must decide whether the cocaine was admissible. We conclude that it was.
The State charged Castleberry with possession of cocaine. Before trial, Castleberry moved to suppress cocaine found by Officer Barrett of the Dallas Police Department (DPD). At approximately 3:00 a.m. on May 31, 2008, Officer Barrett was patrolling the Cedar Springs–Lemmon–Maple area of town, which is a mix of bars, shops, apartment buildings, and residences. Officer Barrett described the area as having one of the “higher crime rates.” Before May 31st, the DPD had caught “quite a few burglars” in the area. Officer Barrett's superior had been “hounding [him] to get after” the burglaries. So, when he noticed two men walking behind a closed business in an area lit by ambient light, he became suspicious.
To determine “what they [were] doing back there at that time,” Officer Barrett's partner dropped Officer Barrett off in front of one of the businesses so that Officer Barrett could circle around and approach the two men from behind. While Officer Barrett was circling on foot, his partner drove around the other direction so that he could approach the men from the front. Officer Barrett testified that, as he approached the two men, he “probably asked them for ID [and] questioned them why they were walking through there.” He went on to testify that upon requesting identification from the two men, Castleberry “was kind of reaching for his waistband” and “I d[id not] know, if he ha[d] a gun or knife....” When the prosecutor asked Officer Barrett to explain the significance of someone reaching for their waistband, Officer Barrett stated, “That's commonly where weapons are carried, in the front waistband, underneath an untucked shirt.” Castleberry testified that his shirt was untucked.
When Castleberry reached for his waistband, Officer Barrett immediately instructed him to put his hands above his head, which is what he “commonly” does in order to “gain control” so he can “do a patdown.” When told to put his hands above his head, Castleberry again reached for his waistband. Officer Barrett ordered Castleberry to put his hands behind his back so he could conduct a Terry frisk, at which time Castleberry reached for his waistband for a third time. Officer Barrett stated that Castleberry “[p]ull[ed] his right hand away from my control back towards the front of his waistband” and “that's when he threw the baggie.” Officer Barrett determined that the baggie contained cocaine and arrested Castleberry.
Officer Barrett testified that when he first noticed Castleberry and his companion, neither man was carrying a duffle bag nor any tools that could be used in a burglary and that nothing about them was out of the ordinary for two people walking down the street. He also testified that he determined that Castleberry was not carrying a weapon. He made this determination after Castleberry had thrown down the baggie containing cocaine. When questioned by the prosecutor, Officer Barrett first described the area of the arrest as dark, but, later, when questioned by the trial judge, he admitted that the area was lit by ambient light.
Castleberry testified that he was walking from a bar to his apartment, which was located approximately one block from where he was arrested. He explained that the area was “well lit enough where you could, you know, see what's going on.” And when the prosecutor asked Castleberry if the area was dangerous, he answered, “No, it's not dangerous at all.” Castleberry testified that he always cuts through “the parking lot of the back of Uncle Julio's, to go to [his] apartment after walking down on Lemmon.” Castleberry also testified that he was carrying a compact disc in his waistband and that his companion was not carrying anything. Then Castleberry admitted that “an officer in a place that ... isn't completely well lit ... coming up on two people he doesn't know and one of them reaches ... to his waistband ... has reason to be concerned.” And when the trial judge asked Castleberry if there was foot traffic in that area at 3:00 a.m., he stated that “[t]here's quite a bit, actually....” The trial judge granted Castleberry's motion to suppress and entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, which state, in relevant part:
• On May 31, 2008, Officer Russell Barrett, while on routine patrol, came in contact with Corey Castleberry in the Cedar Springs/Lemon Avenue/Maple area of Dallas, Texas.
• The contact occurred at approximately 3:00 a.m. behind a restaurant named Uncle Julio's.
• Officer Barrett described the area as “high crime” and said a few burglars had recently been caught in the area. Officer Barrett's superior officer was pressuring him and other officers to “get after” the burglaries.
• Officer Barrett exited his vehicle and approached Castleberry on foot while his partner circled around behind in his cruiser.
• Officer Barrett first described the area as “dark” but later clarified that remark by indicating that “ambient light” from nearby businesses lit the area enough so that one could walk without additional lighting.
• Officer Barrett approached Castleberry for the express purpose of obtaining his identification and determining why he was there at that time of night.
• At the time Officer Barrett approached Castleberry, he did not have any reason to believe that a crime had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur. Castleberry was not carrying anything that looked like a weapon or burglary tool. When Officer Barrett first observed Castleberry, Castleberry was doing nothing more than simply walking in a public area behind a closed business.
• When Officer Barrett first approached Castleberry, Officer Barrett had no information that would lead him to believe that Castleberry was a threat to anyone.
• In response to a request for identification, Castleberry reached for his waistband, a common place for carrying identification. Officer Barrett noted that the waistband is a common place to carry weapons, but he admitted that he did not know if Castleberry had a weapon.
• None of Castleberry's actions indicated that Officer Barrett or anyone else was in jeopardy.
• When Castleberry reached for his waistband, a place where identification is normally kept, in response to Officer Barrett's request for identification, Officer Barrett ordered Castleberry to place his hands in the air. This effectuated a detention of Castleberry. The reason Officer Barrett ordered Castleberry to place his hands in the air was so that Officer Barrett could gain control of Castleberry and conduct a pat down search.
• Any items seized after the detention were a direct result of the initiation of the detention.
• The State's power to invade a citizen's privacy is limited by the requirement that searches and seizures must be supported by a showing of probable cause.
• A lower standard of reasonable suspicion is derived from probable cause and applies to brief detentions, which fall short of being full-scale searches or seizures.
• No stop or detention is permissible when the circumstances are not reasonably consistent with criminal activity. In such a case, the investigation is based only on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch.
• The circumstances must amount to more that an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch. The reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances. The detention will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, either known personally or through the collective knowledge of other officers, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead the officer to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity or poses a threat to officer safety.
• Officer Barrett failed to provide any articulable facts or rational inferences therefrom that Castleberry had been, was, or soon would be engaged in criminal activity. Nor did Officer Barrett provide any articulable facts or rational inferences therefrom that Castleberry posed any threat to Officer Barrett. Thus, Officer Barrett exceeded his authority in detaining Castleberry.
• Any items seized as a fruit of this constitutionally impermissible detention are ordered suppressed.
The State appealed the trial judge's ruling on Castleberry's suppression motion. In its opinion, the court of appeals agreed with the trial judge's finding of fact:
At the time Officer Barrett approached [Castleberry] and his companion, he did not have any reason to believe that a crime had occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur ... [that Castleberry and his companion] were doing nothing more than simply walking in a public area behind a closed business ... [and that] [a]t the time Officer Barrett approached [Castleberry] and his companion he did not have any information which would lead him to believe that [Castleberry] was a threat to the Officer or any other person.1
Agreeing with the trial judge, the court of appeals found that Officer Barrett went “too far” when he asked Castleberry to place his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. State
...appellant without a reasonable belief that appellant had a weapon and was about to use it. 63 This standard was recently applied in State v. Castleberry.64 There, the officer—at the outset of a consensual encounter—did not see Castleberry as a threat, or observe any weapons. But the officer......
-
Zamora v. Stephens
...whether the person is carrying a weapon. Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27-28, 88 S. Ct. at 1883); State v. Castleberry, No. PD-0354-10, 2011 WL 709697, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 2, 2011); O'Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (......
-
Rocha v. State
...strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’ ” State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460, 465 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (quoting 464 S.W.3d 417State v. Garcia–Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ). A trial court's ruling will......
-
Monjaras v. State
...in determining whether an interaction is a consensual encounter. Woodard , 341 S.W.3d at 411 ; see also State v. Castleberry , 332 S.W.3d 460, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) ("The time, place, and surrounding circumstances must be taken into account, but the officer's conduct is the most impo......
-
Search and seizure: persons
...answer some questions or asking some questions, or by offering in evidence his voluntary answers to such questions. State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The crucial test is whether, taking into account the totalit......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...answer some questions or asking some questions, or by offering in evidence his voluntary answers to such questions. State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The crucial test is whether, taking into account the totalit......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...answer some questions or asking some questions, or by offering in evidence his voluntary answers to such questions. State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The crucial test is whether, taking into account the totalit......
-
Search and Seizure: Persons
...answer some questions or asking some questions, or by offering in evidence his voluntary answers to such questions. State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Crain v. State, 315 S.W.3d 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The crucial test is whether, taking into account the totalit......