Page 44 - TPA Journal May June 2024
P. 44
the law of search and seizure to the facts. citizen that he does not have to comply with the
Specifically, we review de novo whether a requests. However, an investigative detention
police-citizen interaction amounts to a does occur if the officer conveys to the citizen
consensual encounter or an investigative that compliance with the requests is required.
detention “because that is an issue of law-the
application of legal principles to a specific set of In determining whether an interaction is a
facts.” “We review de novo the question of consensual encounter or an investigative
whether a consensual encounter has advanced detention, the “time, place, and surrounding
into a detention.” circumstances must be taken into account, but
the officer’s conduct is the most important
The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the factor[.]” This Court has also used the factors
right to be free from “unreasonable searches in United States v. Mendenhall6 when assessing
and seizures[.]” The law has recognized three “what a reasonable person might have
types of police citizen interactions related to perceived during a given interaction with an
searches and seizures: (1) consensual officer[.]” Under Mendenhall,
encounters that do not implicate the Fourth 6 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
Amendment; (2) investigative detentions that
must be supported by a reasonable suspicion of [e]xamples of circumstances that might
criminal activity; and (3) arrests that are indicate a seizure, even where the person did
reasonable only if supported by probable cause. not attempt to leave, would be the threatening
presence of several officers, the display of a
An encounter is consensual only if the citizen is weapon by an officer, some physical touching
free to leave and terminate the interaction at any of the person of the citizen, or the use of
time. An encounter is a detention if an officer, language or tone of voice indicating that
through a showing of force or authority, compliance with the officer’s request might be
restrains a citizen to the point that an compelled.
objectively reasonable person would not feel
free to decline the officer’s requests or terminate Our issue is whether the court of appeals erred
the encounter. “There is no bright line rule in affirming the trial court’s ruling and
dictating when a consensual encounter finding that Appellant’s interaction with Officers
becomes a detention.” Rather, reviewing courts Sallee and Starks was a consensual encounter.
must “examine the totality of the circumstances For the reasons below, we find that the court of
to determine whether a reasonable person appeals was incorrect. Appellant’s interaction
would have felt free to ignore the officer’s with Officers Sallee and Starks escalated into an
request or to terminate the consensual investigative detention.
encounter.” The test to determine whether a
citizen has been detained is objective; the We agree with Justice Goodman that the initial
subjective intent or belief of the detainee or law encounter between Appellant and Officers
enforcement is irrelevant. Sallee and Starks was consensual. Judging the
interaction by the totality of the circumstances
A consensual encounter will not escalate into and in the shoes of an objectively reasonable
an investigative detention solely because an person, we cannot say that Appellant initially
officer asks a citizen for identification and would have felt compelled to continue talking
permission to search. Nor will a consensual to the officers. While it appears the officers
encounter become an investigative detention followed Appellant around the apartment
merely because an officer fails to inform the complex to observe him, this was not
40 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
