Page 55 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat

asked Wise to empty his pockets, and he complied. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION – KNOWLEDGE
He also complied with the police officers’ requests OF ILLEGALITY REQUIRED.
to show them his identification card and keys.
In 2011 Appellant, Rebekah Thonginh Ross,
Wise has not explained why this interaction was
worked as an investigator for the Greenville office
anything but a consensual encounter.
of the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Even if Wise could characterize the interaction as Services (hereinafter referred to as “the
a Terry stop-and-frisk, the stop-and-frisk would be Department” or “CPS”). In 2015, she was
permissible under the Fourth Amendment. convicted of the offense of official oppression.
Detectives Sanders and Sauceda, drawing on their The charge was based on an allegedly unlawful 1
experience and specialized training, could search that Ross conducted pursuant to her duties
reasonably infer from the circumstances as a CPS investigator. Ross’s conviction was
surrounding their interaction with Wise that he affirmed by the Sixth Court of Appeals.2 We
may have been in the process of committing a granted Ross’s petition for discretionary review to
crime. The detectives witnessed Wise pretend to determine whether the court of appeals correctly
sleep on the Greyhound. Wise then produced a held that the evidence was sufficient to support
ticket with a “very generic” name: “James Smith.” Ross’s conviction.
He denied ownership of a backpack that was
1 TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.03(a)(1) (providing
sitting next to his own duffle bag. Yet, no other
that “[a] public servant acting under color of [her]
passengers sat near the backpack. The officers
office or employment commits an offense if [she]
discovered that the backpack contained a
. . . intentionally subjects another to . . . search [or]
substance they believed to be cocaine. The
seizure . . . that [she] knows is unlawful . . . .”).
detectives were aware that narcotics traffickers
often carry weapons. Evaluating the totality of the Based upon our review of the record, viewing the
circumstances, the detectives established requisite evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,
suspicion to detain Wise for questioning and to we hold that the evidence was insufficient to
request that he empty his pockets. support the trial court’s finding beyond a
reasonable doubt that Ross knew her conduct was
The district court erred in characterizing the bus
unlawful, which is an essential element of the
interdiction as an unconstitutional checkpoint stop.
offense of official oppression. We reverse the
Also, Wise lacks standing to challenge the bus
judgment of the court of appeals and render a
driver’s consent to the officers’ request to search
judgment of acquittal.
the Greyhound’s passenger cabin. Finding there is
no other basis in the record to affirm the district On December 12, 2011, the Department received
court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, we a referral stating that a baby had just been born at
REVERSE the district court’s suppression order. a two bedroom, one bath, mobile home to a
mother who was using drugs during her
U.S. v. Wise, No. 16-20808, 5 th Cir. Court of
pregnancy. The report stated that the newborn had
Appeals, Dec. 6 th 2017. not received any medical attention, and the mother
had a previous child who was removed due to the
mother’s drug use. Ross was assigned to the case
on December 13, 2011.
After three days of searching databases and
conducting research to locate the mother and baby,

Sept./Oct. 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 51