Page 119 - Texas police Association Peace Officer Guide 2017

(1) the characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the arresting agent’s
previous experience with criminal activity; (3) the area’s proximity to the border, (4) the usual
traffic patterns on the road; (5) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics
in the area; (6) the appearance of the vehicle; (7) the driver’s behavior; and, (8) the passengers’
number, appearance, and behavior.

Although proximity to the border and an agent’s experience are afforded significant weight,
“[o]ur analysis is not limited to any one factor.”

Espinel had reasonable suspicion to stop Ramirez’s truck. Espinel was an experienced agent who
had been patrolling Highway 77 near Raymondville for the better part of a year. He first spotted
Ramirez’s truck about forty-five miles north of the border, well south of the Sarita checkpoint.
Generally, a vehicle that is first observed within fifty miles of the Mexican border is considered
to be in proximity to it.
Espinel saw Ramirez and his passengers behaving unusually, suggesting they might be nervous.
Such behavior is highly relevant. More-over, Espinel saw Ramirez driving a type of vehicle that
is known to be popular among smugglers and on a highway and at a time6 that is similarly
known to be popular among them.
Each of these facts adds to the reasonableness of Espinel’s decision to stop Ramirez. Taken
together, they are sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. We do not speculate on the proper
result had not all of these facts been present.
…in the current case, a number of relevant factors besides proximity and the agent’s experience
are sufficiently present to confer reason-able suspicion. The judgment of conviction is
AFFIRMED.

th
th
U.S. v. Ramirez, No. 15-40887, 5 Cir., Oct. 14 , 2016.
*****************************************************************
6. Elements of Offenses:

HINDERING APPREHENSION – ELEMENTS – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE –
AGGRAVATED TO FELONY LEVEL

Appellant was convicted of hindering apprehension after encouraging her boyfriend, Demarcus
Degrate, to run from United States Marshals who were arresting him. Because the State alleged
that Appellant knew that Degrate was charged with a felony, her offense was elevated to a third-
degree felony, and she was sentenced to four years in prison. Appellant appealed, arguing that
the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.

Degrate was charged in federal court with the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.
His indictment was sealed. At the time of the incident, he was also on bond for state charges, but
no evidence was presented as to what those charges were. Deputy United States Marshal Kevin
Scott went to Degrate’s address to execute the sealed federal warrant. When he saw Degrate and
Appellant exit the home, Scott followed in his car, activated his lights and siren, and yelled at
them to stop. At that point, Degrate fled and Scott immediately began chasing him. Scott testified
that he did not hear Appellant say anything to Degrate and that he did not inform Appellant and
Degrate why he was stopping them before Degrate began to flee.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 114 2017 Edition