Page 24 - TPA Journal January - February 2018

merchandise. Upon removing the store items from conclusions of law were as follows:
the purse, the officer discovered six small baggies
of methamphetamine and two pills later identified I. FINDINGS OF FACT
as hydrocodone/ibuprophen. The store employee 1. On January 9, 2013, a store employee of the
printed a receipt for the store items in the purse, Dollar General Store at Waldron and Glenoak in
and the total price was $75.10. Appellee was Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas called
placed under arrest for theft over $50. She was Corpus Christi Police Department after becoming
later booked into jail on charges of theft and suspicious that Defendant was shoplifting.
possession of controlled substances. 2. When the police officer arrived, he found
Defendant inside the store shopping.
At the suppression hearing, the trial court 3. When stopped by the officer, Defendant had not
observed that appellee never actually tried to left the store.
leave the store with the property. The trial court 4. When stopped by the officer, Defendant had not
acknowledged that theft may be complete passed the checkout area of the
without the actual removal of property but then store.
concluded that a theft had not occurred here
because appellee was still shopping. The trial II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
court further stated that it was left with a 1. The officer did not have reasonable suspicion to
narrative that is hearsay upon hearsay. Theres no believe that Defendant had committed a crime at
one here to vouch for the credibility of the the time he stopped the Defendant and searched
information. The trial court acknowledged that her purse.
appellee had some items in the basket [shopping 2. The officer did not have probable cause to
cart] and some items in a purse that was zipped up arrest Defendant and to search her purse.
and concealed. But the trial court determined that 3. The State did not meet its burden to show that
there was insufficient evidence that appellee a crime had occurred.
intended to steal the items because she never tried
to leave the store with the items, she did not flee B. Appeal
when approached, she did not try to hide anything,
and she indicated that she was going to pay for the The States appeal addressed two interactions
items. Consequently, the trial court concluded that between appellee and the police officer: (1) the
the officer acted prematurely in contacting her in conversation between the officer and appellee,
the middle of the store and asking about items that and (2) the search of appellees purse. The State
she placed in a purse, whether zipped or contended that the conversation was part of a
unzipped and that inferring an intent to steal was consensual encounter. In the alternative, the State
just too big a leap at this point, considering her contended that the officer had reasonable
cooperation. The trial court also stated that it suspicion to stop appellee to question her about a
question[ed] the reliability of the information possible theft. Regarding the search, the State
contained within the report provided by [the store contended that the totality of the circumstances,
employee] to the officer and there not being including the employees report and the officer s
anyone to substantiate the information [the store conversation with appellee, gave rise to probable
employee] gave. The trial court granted cause to arrest.
appellees motion to suppress.
The State further argued that, because the officer
The trial courts written findings of fact and had probable cause to arrest, the search was a

20 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal