Page 19 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

request and walk away from an officer in the middle of the day in a public place where others are nearby, the
defendant was only a block from his apartment when this encounter occurred. The area was lighted well enough
that a person would not need a flashlight to see whats going on. The defendant also testified that there was
quite a bit of foot traffic in the area, even at 3:00 a.m. Considering all of these circumstances, a reasonable person
would have felt able to terminate the conversation and continue on his way.

Even if the waistband is a common place for carrying identification, and even if the defendants actions
were innocent, the officer was free to suspect from that conduct that the defendant was carrying a weapon. The
officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man
in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. When the
officer first found the defendant behind a closed business in a high crime area, he did not see any weapons and
had no reason to believe the man was a threat. It was reasonable for him to conclude, however, that the suspect
was reaching for a weapon when he moved toward his waistband. The officer s initial approach was not based
on reasonable suspicion, but it was consensual. No suspicion was required. By repeatedly reaching for his
waistband in response to the officer s request for identification, the suspect created a reasonable belief that he
was armed. That belief justified the officer s detention and frisk of the defendant.

The trial court should have denied the suppression motion.

State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).

SEARCH AND SEIZURE REASONABLE SUSPICION WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY ANONYMOUS
TIP CORROBORATED ONLY BY INNOCENT ACTIVITY AND DID NOT SUPPORT DETENTION.

An officer who received an anonymous tip regarding drug activity spotted a gold, Chevy Blazer of the
kind the informant said would contain two females carrying about four ounces of methamphetamine. He followed
the vehicle through town for about five minutes without seeing any traffic violation or other sign of criminal
activity. As the vehicle pulled into a driveway of a residence and parked, the officer turned on his lights. When
the driver got out of the vehicle and tried to walk to the house, the officer told her to stop and come back to the
vehicle. While this was happening, the officer noticed the passenger was reaching down she turned away from
the patrol from us and our view, the front of her body was facing away, and she was digging down in her pants
like this like she was either stuffing, reaching, or scratching something. Suspecting she might have a weapon,
the officer told her to get her hands out of her pants.

As the passenger turned around, he saw a cylindrical shaped object on the side of her leg. Before she
was frisked, the passenger voluntarily removed methamphetamine from her pants and was arrested. Prior to trial,
the defendant moved to suppress the drug evidence found during this stop. She claimed that the officer had seized
her without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. The trial judge granted the motion, and the State
appealed.

Holding: There are three categories of interactions between the police and citizens: arrests, investigative
detentions, and encounters. According to the State, the interaction between the officer and the defendant was a
consensual encounter that did not require probable cause or reasonable suspicion. So long as the citizen remains
free to disregard the officer s questions and go about his or her business, the encounter is consensual and merits
no further constitutional analysis. Court must consider all of the circumstances surrounding a police-citizen
contact in order to determine whether the officers conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person
that the person was not free to decline the officers requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. In this case,
the encounter was not consensual. The officer had been following the car in which the defendant was riding for
about five minutes before he followed it into the driveway of a private residence. The officer turned on his patrol

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 12 2013 Edition