Page 18 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

Amendment because it was a consensual police-citizen encounter and that the initial encounter escalated into an
investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion.

Huddleston v. State, No. 02-09-00406-CR (Tex. App. 2 nd Ft. Worth, August 4, 2011).

SEARCH AND SEIZURE OFFICERS ENCOUNTER WITH MEN FOUND BEHIND BUILDINGS
IN A HIGH-CRIME AREA WAS CONSENSUAL, BUT REASONABLE SUSPICION DEVELOPED
WHEN SUSPECT REACHED FOR HIS WAISTBAND.

A police officer on routine patrol in an area that had been experiencing a number of burglaries saw two
men walking behind a closed business at around 3:00 a.m. The officer and his partner approached the men from
opposite directions. Once contact was made, the officer asked the suspects for identification, which caused one
of the men to reach for his waistband. Fearing that the suspect was reaching for a weapon, the officer ordered
him to put his hands above his head. Instead of complying with the order, the man again reached for his
waistband. After the officer told the suspect to put his hands behind his back so he could be frisked, the man
reached for his waistband a third time and threw a baggie containing cocaine. When the officers first saw the
men walking behind the building, neither one was carrying any burglary tools, and nothing about their
appearance was out of the ordinary. It was determined after the baggie of cocaine was thrown down that the
suspect was not carrying a weapon. The area where the stop occurred was lit by ambient light. At the suppression
hearing, the defendant testified that he was walking from a bar to his apartment, located about a block from where
the stop was made. He described the area as well lit enough where you could see whats going on.
According to the defendant, the area was not dangerous at all, and that he was carrying a compact disc in his
waistband. He also testified that there was quite a bit of foot traffic in the area at that time of day.

The trial judge granted the defendants motion to suppress the cocaine. He concluded that the defendant was
detained when the officer ordered him to put his hands in the air, and that the officer had no reason to believe at
that time the man was a threat to anyone. The State appealed from this ruling. The court of appeals agreed that,
at the time of the stop, the defendant was simply walking in a public area and the officers had no information that
would cause them to believe the men were a threat. This affirmance was appealed to the court of criminal appeals.

Holding: Consensual encounters require no objective justification. Investigatory detentions must be
supported by reasonable suspicion, and arrests are based on probable cause. When a police-citizen encounter is
consensual, the Fourth Amendment and its protections are not implicated. An officer is just as free as anyone to
stop and question a fellow citizen. The citizen, of course, is also free to terminate a consensual encounter at any
time and walk away from the officer. An officer may request identification from a citizen, but the citizen may
ignore the request and refuse to provide identification or information.

If the citizen does comply, that fact does not necessarily negate the consensual nature of the encounter. Restraint
of a citizens liberty transforms the consensual encounter into a seizure requiring an objective level of suspicion.
There is no brightline rule to determine when an encounter becomes a seizure. All of the circumstances
surrounding the interaction must be taken into account, but the officer s conduct is the most important factor in
determining whether a police-citizen interaction is a consensual encounter or a Fourth Amendment seizure.
During an investigative detention, a limited pat down of the outer clothing of the detainee is allowed, but only if
the officer reasonably suspects the person is armed. Reasonable inferences may be drawn by the officer in
deciding whether reasonable suspicion exists.

In this case, the initial contact between the officer and defendant was consensual. Even if the officer had,
or believed he had, reasonable suspicion, a reasonable person in the defendants position would have felt free to
decline the officer s request for identification and information. While most people would feel freer to ignore a

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 11 2013 Edition