Page 30 - TPA Journal January - February 2018

REASONABLE SUSPICION, TRAFFIC that he had been employed by the Potter County
STOP, DRUG ARREST. Sheriff s Office for nine years and had been a
licensed peace officer in Texas for approximately
In his appeal from the trial courts order denying eight years. He stated that he was assigned to the
his motion to suppress, Elvis Ramirez-Tamayo, Criminal Intelligence Unit and mainly work[ed]
appellant, argued that the deputy who stopped him the highway and interdiction functions. He
lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong his agreed with the States description of his duties as
detention after deciding to issue him a warning being sort of like patrolling; [ ] youre out on the
ticket for speeding, and the court of appeals streets in your car every day[.]
agreed. [T]he State argues that the court of
appeals erred by failing to defer to the trial courts Deputy Simpson recounted that he stopped
implicit determination that the credible officer s appellant for driving 78 miles per hour in a 75
training and experience were adequate to support mile per hour zone on the interstate freeway. For
his inferences and deductions that the otherwise safety reasons, Deputy Simpson approached the
seemingly innocent circumstances led to passenger side of appellants car rather than the
reasonable suspicion of narcotics possession in driver s side. The deputy saw that appellant
this case, and by failing to consider the totality of appeared confused after he approached on the
the evidence in examining whether there was passenger side, and, rather than lowering the
reasonable suspicion. We agree with the State and, window, appellant leaned across the front seat to
therefore, reverse the judgment of the court of open the passenger door. The deputy testified that
appeals and reinstate the trial courts judgment of he found this behavior strange because
conviction. appellant was driving a rented, almost brand-new
car, which would likely have electric windows
I. Background that easily could be rolled down with the push of
In 2015, appellant was driving on Interstate 40 a button from the driver s side of the car. The
near Amarillo when he was stopped for speeding. deputy also believed that it would be unlikely that
The traffic stop eventually led to the discovery of a rental car company would rent a vehicle whose
approximately twenty pounds of marijuana that power windows did not work because, ordinarily,
had been hidden inside the door panels of a rental car company would inspect the vehicle
appellants rental car. prior to renting it to make sure that it was fully
functional. The deputy testified that he did not see
Appellant was arrested and later charged with any damage to the window or car to explain why
possession of marijuana in an amount greater than appellant behaved as if the window was
five pounds but less than fifty pounds. Appellant inoperable. The deputy explained that he felt it
filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence in was suspicious that appellant did not roll down the
which he argued that the deputy lacked reasonable passenger window because, in his experience, he
suspicion to continue detaining him beyond the had previously encountered drug traffickers who
time needed to conduct the traffic stop for had concealed drugs inside car door panels
speeding. making the windows inoperable.

Deputy Simpson was the sole witness at the In addition to appellants opening of the door
hearing on appellants motion to suppress. At the rather than rolling down the window, the deputy
time of the hearing, which took place about a year discussed four additional factors that he
after the traffic stop, Deputy Simpson testified observed during the traffic stop that led him to

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