State v. Skiles

Decision Date29 January 1997
Docket NumberNo. 433-94,433-94
PartiesThe STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Benny Lee SKILES, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Patricia A. Myers, Jacksboro, for appellant.

Michael A. Klein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, Matthew Paul, Asst. State's Attorney, Austin, Matthew Paul, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

Appellee was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). Appellee filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court granted appellee's motion, finding that the actions of the police officers constituted "a roadblock." The State appealed and the Second Court of Appeals affirmed, State v. Skiles, 870 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1994, pet. filed), holding that "the trial judge had sufficient evidence to conclude that the police action was a traffic checkpoint" in violation of appellee's Fourth Amendment rights. The Tarrant County District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney (collectively, "the State") filed petitions for discretionary review raising the following grounds for review: (1) the actions of the police officers did not constitute a roadblock; and (2) the appellee was not "seized" prior to the moment the officers observed him commit a traffic violation.

I.

On Sunday, January 5, 1992, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Tim Holzschuh of the Fort Worth Police Department was on duty in the Stockyards area of north Fort Worth. Officer Holzschuh was working the traffic detail, the midnight shift (10:00 p.m.--6:00 a.m.). The Stockyards area is a well-known tourist center with a high volume of traffic flow, and several nightclubs. This high concentration of traffic is exacerbated on weekends as a result of people "cruising" in circles around the Stockyards and the adjacent streets (the cruising was concentrated around North Main, Ellis, 25th, 24th, and 23rd Streets). The high volume of vehicles on the streets in this small area led to "stop and go" traffic as the streets became clogged with vehicles. This area was also considered a high-crime area, with murders, assaults, accidents, and other alcohol related incidents taking place there (especially around the area of an alley just off the 100 block of 24th Street). The heavy traffic also aggravated the crime problem, as most of the shootings in this area were "drive-by" types.

The police determined that in order to decrease the incidents of violence that were taking place in this area adjacent to the Stockyards the traffic flow needed to be increased, and therefore the cruising needed to be stopped. In order to discourage the cruisers from concentrating in the area, the police adopted a two-step approach: (1) temporarily transforming the 100 block of 24th Street from a two-way into a one-way street; and (2) establishing a visible police presence and enforcing the traffic laws by ticketing for all observed traffic violations. The Fort Worth Police also completely closed Exchange Street to all traffic.

In order to have the traffic go temporarily in only one direction, Officer Holzschuh put out traffic cones on each end of the 100 block of 24th Street (where it intersected Ellis and North Main). This shut down the westbound lane but not the eastbound lane. The result was that persons coming off Ellis had free access to 24th Street and could continue to travel eastbound, but persons coming off Main (attempting to travel west) could not enter onto 24th.

Five or six police officers positioned themselves along a well-lighted, forty yard stretch of 24th Street in order to watch for traffic violations. Three or four other officers were also present in that block to handle non-traffic offenses, such as fights and muggings. The blocked off area gave the officers a protected area to stand and view the traffic (the police had conducted similar operations before without the cones and had been dangerously exposed to oncoming traffic). When the officers observed a violation, they would direct the vehicle out of the flow of traffic, either to the north or south side of 24th Street, and issue a citation. No motorist was detained unless and until the officers observed the motorist commit a traffic violation. Nothing that the officers did restricted the eastbound traffic on 24th Street. The only time that the traffic was stopped was when the flow was backed up from vehicles trying to enter Main Street, or when the officers would stop the traffic in order to let pedestrians cross 24th Street. Apparently this approach worked because by 2:00 a.m., the traffic flow had dissolved from heavy to light, with the cruisers moving to streets located further south.

At approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Holzschuh observed appellee turn off of Ellis Street onto 24th Street, traveling eastbound toward North Main. Officer Holzschuh was standing at the west end of the 100 block of 24th Street, behind the cones in the westbound lane, near Ellis Street. He also observed that appellee was not wearing a seat belt. Officer Holzschuh walked toward appellee's car as it was coming toward him, held up his hand, and yelled for him to stop. Appellee did not stop and continued driving east down 24th Street. Officer Holzschuh signaled to the other officers (also on foot patrol) further down the street to stop appellee's vehicle. The other officers attempted to stop appellee by yelling, waving their hands, and shining their flashlights at him. Appellee would not stop until finally an officer ran along side the vehicle and pounded on the trunk. He was directed to pull over to the south side curb of 24th Street. Officer Holzschuh was summoned by the other officers, and walked down 24th Street to where appellee was being detained. He determined that appellee was intoxicated and arrested him for DWI.

II.
A.

At the pretrial hearing on appellee's motion to suppress, the State presented evidence through the testimony of Officer Holzschuh. At the conclusion of the officer's testimony, the trial court made the following factual findings:

"I'll find that on January 5th, 1992, ... [Officer Holzschuh] while working the midnight shift, at about 2:00 a.m., in the stockyards area of north Fort Worth, in a very high traffic flow area where cruising abounded, the cruisers circled around the area, there were lots of accidents, murders, it was a high crime area, and quoting the officer: "We were enforcing the traffic laws to get people to stay out of the area.

We were writing tickets. We blocked the north portion of 24th Street with cones ... to discourage traffic and cruising down 24th Street in this area." The officer observed the Defendant's car enter 24th Street proceeding east.... The officer was out there with about five or six other officers. The officer observed that the Defendant didn't have a seat belt on; told him to stop. He didn't stop immediately. He hollered at the other officers to stop him. They did."

The court granted the defendant's motion to suppress by ruling: "I think I'll let the State reverse me this time. I'm going to find it is a roadblock. It violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 9 of the Texas Constitution." (Emphasis added). However, the trial court also found that everything Officer Holzschuh testified to was truthful and that he observed the defendant not wearing his seat belt, a violation of the law that was committed in the officer's presence, which would authorize the officer to stop the defendant.

B.

The Second Court of Appeals concluded that the police officers were conducting a sobriety checkpoint. Skiles, 870 S.W.2d at 343. They found that the high concentration of drinking establishments in the area and the time period that the officers were present suggested that enforcement of the DWI laws may have been the motive for their actions. Id. The Court stated: "[B]y blocking one lane of traffic, and positioning a number of officers along that single lane of slow moving traffic, it would not have been necessary to completely stop traffic to perform the observation functions of a sobriety checkpoint." Id. (Emphasis added). The Court of Appeals finally held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the police action was a "traffic checkpoint" and affirmed the trial court's suppression order. 1 Id.

III.

At a suppression hearing, the trial judge is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses, as well as the weight to be given their testimony. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). In considering the trial court's ruling, an appellate court does not engage in its own factual review but decides whether the trial judge's fact findings are supported by the record. Id. In making that determination, the appellate court must consider the totality of the circumstances and may not disturb the trial court's findings absent an abuse of discretion. Dancy v. State, 728 S.W.2d 772, 777 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 975, 108 S.Ct. 485, 98 L.Ed.2d 484 (1987). If the findings of fact are supported by the record, the only question is whether the trial court improperly applied the law to the facts. Romero, 800 S.W.2d at 543. Even if the Court of Appeals would have reached a different result, as long as the trial court's rulings are at least within the "zone of reasonable disagreement," the appellate court should not intercede. Dubose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, (Tex.Cr.App.1996).

Normally, we defer to the factual findings of the courts of appeals when reviewing their decisions. Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Esteves v. State, 849 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). As long as it appears that they have discharged their duty conscientiously by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Johnson v. State, 1386, Sept. Term, 2017
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Septiembre 2019
    ...Id. at 427, 124 S.Ct. 885.One case from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has similarities to the case before us. In State v. Skiles , 938 S.W.2d 447 (1997), the Court of Criminal Appeals, en banc , held that a group of police officers were not conducting an illegal roadblock by standing ......
  • State v. Terraza
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 15 Septiembre 1999
    ...theory that judge could have believed defendant, rather than the police officer or justice of the peace) with State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447, 451-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court's suppression of evidence on basis of illegal roadblock was erroneous, because trial court found all of t......
  • Jones v. U.S., No. 06-CF-1000.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • 4 Junio 2009
    ...a way that a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to leave. Brendlin, 127 S.Ct. at 2405; State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447, 453 (Tex. Crim.App.1997) (en banc) (no seizure when police shut down one lane of a two-lane road and observed passing traffic for Accordingly, beca......
  • Johnson v. State, 1386
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Septiembre 2019
    ...were constitutional. Id. at 427. One case from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has similarities to the case before us. In State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447 (1997), the Court of Criminal Appeals, en banc, held that a group of police officers were not conducting an illegal roadblock by stan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Search and Seizure: Property
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2016
    ...they observe; even where the intent of the police is by heavy ticketing to cut down use of the road in question. State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (where the area in question was one where teens The Edmond-type presumptive rule of unconstitutionality does not apply to c......
  • Search and Seizure: Property
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2018
    ...they observe; even where the intent of the police is by heavy ticketing to cut down use of the road in question. State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (where the area in question was one where teens “cruised”). The Edmond-type presumptive rule of unconstitutionality does no......
  • Misdemeanor Defense
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Small-firm Practice Tools. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...they observe, even where the intent of the police is by heavy ticketing to cut down use of the road in question. [ State v. Skiles , 938 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (the area in question was one where teens “cruised”).] [§§15:85-15:89 Reserved] D. Motions to Suppress and Jury Charges ......
  • Search and seizure: property
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...they observe; even where the intent of the police is by heavy ticketing to cut down use of the road in question. State v. Skiles, 938 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (where the area in question was one where teens “cruised”). The Edmond-type presumptive rule of unconstitutionality does no......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT