State v. James Dean Fudge

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-99-00793-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

James Dean Fudge, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY,

NO. 517,426, HONORABLE DAVID F. CRAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellee James Dean Fudge was charged with driving while intoxicated. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 40.04 (a) (West Supp. 2001). He filed a pretrial motion to suppress contending

that the evidence of the offense was discovered during an improper investigative stop. Following

a hearing, the county court at law suppressed the evidence and the State appeals. See Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2001). The issue on appeal is whether the police

officer lawfully stopped appellee based on unsolicited information given to the officer in a face-to-face manner. We will reverse the order of the county court at law and remand the cause for

further proceedings.

Background

On October 20, 1998, Tim Pruett, an Austin police officer with eight years'

experience, was in the process of arresting an individual on a traffic warrant at a Texaco

convenience store and gas station located at the intersection of West Ben White and South

Congress Avenue. While Officer Pruett was making the arrest, a taxi cab pulled into the parking

area of the store near Officer Pruett. The cab driver got out of the cab, came over to Officer

Pruett, and told him that he had seen a white pickup truck driving "all over the road," that the

truck "couldn't stay on the road," and that he "believed [the driver] was drunk." (1) Just as the cab

driver finished telling Officer Pruett about the white pickup, he told Officer Pruett, "That's it right

there." At that moment, Officer Pruett watched as a white pickup pulled into the parking lot,

drove around the back of the store and then drove back toward the front of the store. As the truck

came around to the front of the store, Officer Pruett stopped the truck and asked appellee, the

driver, to step out. Appellee got out of the truck and grabbed the side of the truck to maintain his

balance. Officer Pruett noticed appellee's eyes were bloodshot and there was a strong odor of

alcohol on his breath. Officer Pruett requested that another officer give appellee field sobriety

tests. After failing the sobriety tests, appellee was arrested for driving while intoxicated.

In a pretrial motion, appellee moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the police

contending that Officer Pruett stopped him without having a reasonable suspicion of any unlawful

activity. During the pretrial suppression hearing, the only evidence presented was Officer Pruett's

testimony. He testified that his sole basis for the stop was the unsolicited information provided

to him in a face-to-face manner by the cab driver. He further testified that he did not observe

appellee commit any traffic violation. The State did not elicit any testimony about the cab driver.

In its suppression order, the county court at law court expressly ruled:

Court finds officer's testimony is credible but that officer had not sufficient

probable cause nor reasonable suspicion for the initial detention of defendant as

was stated in the record.

Accordingly, the trial court suppressed all of the evidence obtained as a result of the stop.

Discussion

On appeal, the State contends that the county court at law erred in granting the

motion to suppress because the stop did not violate appellee's rights under the Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution, under Article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, or under

Chapters 14 and 38 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

The appropriate standard of review for a suppression ruling is a bifurcated review,

giving almost total deference to the trial court's findings of fact, but conducting a de novo review

of the court's application of law to those facts. State v. Ross , 32 S.W.3d 853, 856 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2000) (citing Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)); Guzman

v. State , 955 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Police officers may stop and briefly detain persons suspected of criminal activity

on less information than is constitutionally required for probable cause to arrest. Terry v. Ohio ,

392 U.S. 1, 22-26 (1968); Garza v. State , 771 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). To

justify the investigative detention, the individual officer must have a reasonable suspicion that

"some activity out of the ordinary is occurring or had occurred, some suggestion to connect the

detained person with the unusual activity, and some indication that the activity is related to a

crime." Terry , 392 U.S. at 21 -22 ; Johnson v. State , 658 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex. Crim. App.

1983); Harris v. State , 913 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1995, no pet.). The officer

must have specific articulable facts which, in light of his experience and personal knowledge,

together with inferences from those facts, would reasonably warrant the intrusion on the freedom

of the person detained for investigation. Terry , 392 U.S. at 30 ; Woods v. State , 956 S.W.2d 33,

38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Comer v. State , 754 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986);

Johnson , 658 S.W.2d at 626 .

The reasonableness of a temporary stop turns on the "totality of the circumstances"

in each case. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 230-31 (1983); Shaffer v. State , 562 S.W.2d 853,

855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Davis v. State , 794 S.W.2d 123, 125 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, pet.

ref'd). Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of the

information possessed by the police and its degree of reliability. Alabama v. White , 496 U.S. 325,

330 (1990). "Both factors--quantity and quality--are considered in the totality of the

circumstances--the whole picture . . . must be taken into account when evaluating whether there

is reasonable suspicion." Id. (citing United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)); see also

Carmouche , 10 S.W.3d at 328-29 ; Reynolds v. State , 962 S.W.2d 307, 311 (Tex. App.--Houston

[14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd).

In this case, the county court at law expressly found that Officer Pruett's testimony

was credible. Cf. Ross , 32 S.W.3d at 857 (trial court made no finding of fact that officer's

testimony was credible). Based on the standard of review, we will give great deference to this

finding. The county court's suppression of the evidence, therefore, must rest on the determination

that the facts established by Officer Pruett's testimony do not constitute reasonable suspicion for

the stop. Id. at 856-57 . The crucial portion of Officer Pruett's testimony was that his only basis

for stopping appellee was the information provided to him in a face-to-face manner by the cab

driver; he did not observe any independent acts upon which to lawfully base the stop. The issue

for us in reviewing de novo the application of search and seizure law to the facts is, whether

considering the totality of the circumstances, did Officer Pruett, based solely on the information

provided to him in a face-to-face manner by the cab driver, have the reasonable suspicion

necessary to lawfully stop appellee.

A tip by an unnamed informant of undisclosed reliability standing alone rarely will

establish the requisite level of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigative detention.

Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 269 (2000) (citing White , 496 U.S. at 329 ). There must be some

further indicia of reliability, some additional facts from which a police officer may reasonably

conclude that the tip is reliable and a detention is justified. Id.

Other courts have addressed the issue of whether unsolicitated information from a

person who, in a face-to-face manner, advises an officer that a designated person present on the

scene is committing or has committed a specific crime should be given serious attention and great

weight by the officer. See United States v. Sierra-Hernandez , 581 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1978); State

v. Sailo , 910 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref'd); see also State v. Garcia , 25

S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); J.L. , 529 U.S. at 274-76 (Kennedy,

J., concurring).

In Sierra-Hernandez , a man described only as "wearing farmer's overalls and a

baseball cap and driving a late-model brown Mercedes-Benz" approached a border patrol officer

who was working during mid-day checking the citizenship of workers in a field just north of the

Mexico-United States border. Sierra-Hernandez , 581 F.2d at 762 . The man pointed to a black

pickup and said, "The black pickup truck just loaded with weed at the canebreak." The officer

knew that the general neighborhood and the canebreak in particular were sites of previous

incidents of drug smuggling and illegal entry of aliens. Id. Without any other information from

the man, the officer radioed for help and began following the pickup. He stopped the pickup about

four and a half miles later and arrested the driver, the sole occupant in the car, for possession of

marihuana. The Sierra-Hernandez court held that a person who is not connected with the police

or who is not a paid informant is inherently trustworthy when the person approaches a police

officer and, in a face-to-face manner, gives the officer unsolicited information that a crime is being

committed. Id . at 763. The court noted that just as there is no per se rule establishing the

reliability of a person's information to justify a stop in every instance, likewise there is no per se

rule requiring an officer to obtain the identity of a person giving information before acting on that

information. In evaluating the reasonableness of the officer's conduct the court considered both

the circumstances in which the information was given to the officer and the facts that would justify

the officer in acting on the information without knowing the person's identity or obtaining

information for tracing him later. The indicia of reliability the court noted were the officer's

knowledge that the canebreak was the site of previous criminal activity, the information was

neither vague about the type of criminal activity nor the time of the criminal activity, and the

suspect was clearly indicated and his actions described with some particularity. Id . By presenting

himself to the officer in a face-to-face manner and doing so while driving a car from which his

identity might be traced, the person was in a position to be held accountable for his intervention.

The court held that there was nothing in the record that should have caused the officer to doubt

the reliability or good faith of the person tendering the information. The court concluded that the

information, considered in light of the circumstances, was sufficient to provide the officer with

the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. Id.

In State v. Sailo , while officers were performing a traffic stop, "a white male who

was a distinguished-looking older gentleman in his mid-fifties with graying hair" drove up from

the opposite direction and shouted at the officers excitedly from across the road. Sailo , 910

S.W.2d at 186 . One of the officers crossed to the middle of the road where the man told the

officer that he had seen a small, white Toyota pickup truck driving all over the road and that it had

almost run into a ditch twice. The man suspected that the driver of the pickup was drunk. The

man said that the truck would be approaching from behind him. The officer asked the man to wait

on the side of the road. The officer next saw a white Toyota pickup truck approaching exactly as

the man indicated. The officer asked the driver, Sailo, to drive into a nearby parking area so he

could investigate. The investigating officers testified that they did not observe the pickup commit

any traffic violations. Although the man who alerted the officers waited briefly on the side of the

road, he drove away before either officer could get any identifying information from him. Sailo

was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The Sailo court held that there was nothing in the

record that should have caused the officers to doubt the reliability or good faith of the man who

gave them the information. The man, although unknown to the officers, was sufficiently reliable

because he came forward to give the officer unsolicited information in a face-to-face manner. Id.

at 188 . The court held that a person presenting himself to a police officer, and doing so while

driving a car from which his identity might easily be traced, puts himself in a position to be held

accountable for his intervention unlike a person who makes an anonymous telephone call. Id. The

Sailo court referred to Illinois v. Gates , in which the Supreme Court held that in situations where

unsolicited information consists of a detailed description of wrongdoing, along with a statement

that the event was observed firsthand, the information is to be given greater weight than might

otherwise be the case. Id. at 189 (citing Gates , 462 U.S. at 234 ). The Sailo court noted that the

officers knew the area was one of frequent DWI encounters, that the suspect was described by a

reliable person, and that the suspect's location and criminal actions were indicated with some

particularity. The Sailo court determined that given the totality of the circumstances, in light of

the experience and knowledge of the officers, and giving great weight to the unsolicited

information provided to the officers in a face-to-face manner, the officers had the reasonable

suspicion necessary for an investigative stop.

In the case before us, unlike Sierra-Hernandez and Sailo , the record does not

contain any evidence about whether Officer Pruett knew the area was a site of previous criminal

activity. However, as in Sierra-Hernandez and Sailo , the primary indicia of reliability in this case

was that the cab driver gave unsolicited information to Officer Pruett in a face-to-face manner.

By approaching Officer Pruett face-to-face, the cab driver put himself in a position where he could

have been held accountable for his intervention. Additionally, following the holding in Sierra-Hernandez that a person, not connected with the police or not a paid informant, who gives a police

officer unsolicited information in a face-to-face manner is inherently reliable, there is nothing in

the suppression record that should have caused Officer Pruett to doubt the cab driver's inherent

reliability or good faith. Another indicia of reliability in the present case was that the information

given by the cab driver was neither imprecise about the time of the criminal activity nor vague

about the kind of criminal activity. We hold that based on the totality of the circumstances,

Officer Pruett had specific facts, which in light of his experience and personal knowledge, together

with inferences from those facts, gave him the reasonable suspicion necessary to warrant an

investigative stop of appellee.

Conclusion

We hold that the county court at law erred in its application of the law to the facts

of this case and that the suppression motion should have been overruled. The State's issue is

sustained. We reverse the suppression order of the county court at law and remand the cause for

further proceedings.

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Yeakel, Patterson and Jones *

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: February 28, 2001

Publish

* Before J. Woodfin Jones, Justice (former), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 75.003 (a)(1) (West 1998).

1. The affidavit for warrant of arrest and detention contained in the clerk's record notes that

a Scott Wesely Cook "residing at 6702 N. Lamar #113 identified the said accused to Officer T.

Pruett as the driver of [a] 1994 Chevy truck." There is no indication that the affidavit was

admitted at the suppression hearing or that it was considered by the court.

cated. The Sailo court held that there was nothing in the

record that should have caused the officers to doubt the reliability or good faith of the man who

gave them the information. The man, although unknown to the officers, was sufficiently reliable

because he came forward to give the officer unsolicited information in a face-to-face manner. Id.

at 188 . The court held that a person presenting himself to a police officer, and doing so while

driving a car from which his identity might easily be traced, puts himself in a position to be held

accountable for his intervention unlike a person who makes an anonymous telephone call. Id. The

Sailo court referred to Illinois v. Gates , in which the Supreme Court held that in situations where

unsolicited information consists of a detailed description of wrongdoing, along with a statement

that the event was observed firsthand, the information is to be given greater weight than might

otherwise be the case. Id. at 189 (citing Gates , 462 U.S. at 234 ). The Sailo court noted that the

officers knew the area was one of frequent DWI encounters, that the suspect was described by a

reliable person, and that the suspect's location and criminal actions were indicated with some

particularity. The Sailo court determined that given the totality of the circumstances, in light of

the experience and knowledge of the officers, and giving great weight to the unsolicited

information provided to the officers in a face-to-face manner, the officers had the reasonable

suspicion necessary for an investigative stop.

In the case before us, unlike Sierra-Hernandez and Sailo , the record does not

contain any evidence about whether Officer Pruett knew the area was a site of previous criminal

activity. However, as in Sierra-Hernandez and Sailo , the primary indicia of reliability in this case

was that the cab driver gave unsolicited information to Officer Pruett in a face-to-face manner.

By approaching Officer Pruett face-to-face, the cab driver put himself in a position where he could

have been held accountable for his intervention. Additionally, following the holding in Sierra-Hernandez that a person, not connected with the police or not a paid informant, who gives a police

officer unsolicited information in a face-to-face manner is inherently reliable, there is nothing in

the suppression record that should have caused Officer Pruett to doubt the cab driver's inherent

reliability or good faith. Another indicia of reliability in the present case was that the information

given by the cab driver was neither imprecise about the time of the criminal activity nor vague

about the kind of criminal activity. We hold that based on the totality of the circumstances,

Officer Pruett had specific facts, which in light of his experience and personal knowledge, together

with inferences from those facts, gave him the reasonable suspicion necessary to warrant an

investigative stop of appellee.

Conclusion

We hold that the county court at law erred in its application of the law to the facts

of this case and that the suppression motion should have been overruled. The State's issue is

sustained. We reverse the suppression order of the county court at law and remand the cause for

further proceedings.

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Yeakel, Patterson and Jones *

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: February 28, 2001

Publish

* Before J. Woodfin Jones, Justice (former), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 75.003 (a)(1) (West 1998).

1. The affidavit for warrant of arrest and detention contained in the clerk's record notes that

a Scott Wesely Cook "residing at 6702 N. Lamar #113 identified the said accused to Officer T.

Pruett as the driver of [a] 1994 Chevy truck." There is no indication that the affidavit was

admitted at the suppression hearing or that it was considered by the court.

cated. The Sailo court held that there was nothing in the

record that should have caused the officers to doubt the reliability or good faith of the man who

gave them the information. The man, although unknown to the officers, was sufficiently reliable

because he came forward to give the officer unsolicited information in a face-to-face manner. Id.

at 188 . The court held that a person presenting himself to a police officer, and doing so while

driving a car from which his identity might easily be traced, puts himself in a position to be held

accountable for his intervention unlike a person who makes an anonymous telephone call. Id. The

Sailo court referred to Illinois v. Gates , in which the Supreme Court held that in situations where

unsolicited information consists of a detailed description of wrongdoing, along with a statement

that the event was observed firsthand, the information is to be given greater weight than might

otherwise be the case. Id. at 1