Page 43 - May June 2020 TPA Journal

in the Conroe Police Department’s narcotics under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
division. He told Wise that the backpack above under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
his head contained a substance believed to be
cocaine. In a conversational tone Detective “When examining a district court’s ruling on a
Sanders asked Wise whether he had any weapons. motion to suppress, we review questions of law de
Wise said no. Detective Sanders then asked Wise novo and factual findings for clear error.”
to empty his pockets. Wise complied. Among “Factual findings are clearly erroneous only if a
other items, Wise removed an identification card review of the record leaves this Court with a
that Detective Sanders asked to see. Wise gave ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
him the card. The card said “Morris Wise.” Wise been committed.’” Factual findings that are
also removed a lanyard with several keys “influenced by an incorrect view of the law or an
attached. Wise then put everything back in his incorrect application of the correct legal test” are
pockets. The officers asked Wise if he could again reviewed de novo. We view the evidence “in the
remove the items from his pockets. The officers light most favorable to the prevailing party”—
then asked to see Wise’s keys. Wise held out his here, Wise.
hand, and Detective Sauceda took the keys. The district court concluded that the Conroe
Detective Sauceda used a key to activate the Police Department’s decision to stop Greyhound
locking mechanism on the “TSA lock” that the Bus #6408 constituted an unconstitutional
officers had cut from the backpack. Detective checkpoint stop. Accordingly, the court
Sanders then arrested Wise. suppressed all evidence the police obtained
2 While outside, Wise was never told by an officer subsequent to the stop. The court characterized a
that he could remain silent or refuse to comply checkpoint stop as: “a police program in which
with their requests to empty his pockets. officers gather at a specific place and, following a
department-issued script, briefly speak to drivers
3 Some testimony supports Wise’s contention that without having any reason to suspect
an officer removed the lanyard from Wise’s wrongdoing.” The court asserted that the essence
pocket. However, this testimony is vague and is of an unconstitutional checkpoint stop is the
contradicted elsewhere in the record. forced interaction between an officer and a
motorist. Moreover, the court found that
In the trial court, Wise filed a motion to suppress checkpoint stops are only permissible “if they are
the evidence the officers obtained after he was for a narrow particular law enforcement purpose
asked to exit the bus; he claimed this was an directly connected to the use of the roads.”
unconstitutional seizure. The Government timely According to the court, permissible law
filed its response and asserted that the officers had enforcement purposes include removing drunk
reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory drivers, verifying licenses, and conducting
detention. The district court held a suppression immigration checkpoints near the border;
hearing. Detective Sanders and Detective checkpoints cannot be used “merely to uncover
Sauceda testified; Wise did not testify. At a later evidence of ordinary crimes.” Under this
pre-trial hearing, the district court judge stated characterization, the district court concluded that
that he would suppress “the bus search evidence.” the bus interdiction constituted an
The Government appeals the district court’s ruling unconstitutional checkpoint. First, the police
on a motion to suppress evidence in a case forced the bus driver to interact with them. The
involving the prosecution of a federal offense. officers knew that Greyhound mandated that its
The district court properly asserted jurisdiction bus drivers stop at specific locations for loading

May/June 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 39