Page 29 - TPA Journal September October 2024

ing up to the round-up. And the government did Houston purportedly associated with gang vio-
not introduce into evidence the packet or any lence and narcotics trafficking. Around noon,
details about the origin or timeliness of the infor- Officers observed Appellant walking around an
mation therein to show that it was premised on apartment complex with a backpack on. The offi-
articulable facts. cers thought it was “not normal” that Appellant
looked down as the officers drove by and looked
We do not blindly accept officers’ reliance on up when they passed. The officers also believed
information obtained through police channels; the Appellant—wearing a beanie, light jacket, and
government must substantiate the basis of the pants—was overdressed for the weather.
information. Because the government here has
not established reasonable suspicion that could Officer Sallee wanted “to see where [Appellant]
have been transferred between officers, the collec- was going or what was going on.” The officers
tive knowledge doctrine does not apply. turned the car around but did not see Appellant.
We REVERSE the denial of Alvarez’s motion to The officers assumed Appellant ran away; howev-
suppress, VACATE his conviction and sentence, er, they saw Appellant again on the other side of
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent the complex. The officers pulled in front of
with this opinion. Appellant but did not turn their police lights or
siren on. Officer Starks can be heard on his body-
U.S. v. Alvarez, no. 21-40091, 5 th Cir., 7/13/22. worn camera recording announcing that the offi-
**************************************** cers are heading into a “consensual encounter.”
* He got out of the vehicle and introduced himself
to Appellant. Meanwhile, Officer Starks exited the
REASONABLE SUSPICION – detention or con- passenger side of the vehicle, walked around to
sensual contact the rear of the cruiser, and stood a few feet away.
Both officers were in uniform with their service
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, pistols visible but holstered. The police car was
Appellant Tairon Jose Monjaras pled guilty to parked in front of Appellant while the officers
unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. He stood on either side of him. There was an apart-
was sentenced to five years imprisonment. On ment building behind Appellant.
appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred
in denying his motion to suppress because his After introducing himself, Officer Sallee asked
interaction with law enforcement was an inves- Appellant for basic information including his
tigative detention without reasonable suspicion name, where he lived, and if he had identification.
rather than a consensual encounter. A majority of Officer Sallee stood close to Appellant, but his
the court of appeals disagreed and found that the demeanor was relatively friendly. Appellant
interaction was a consensual encounter. We hold appeared to understand the questions and replied
that Appellant’s interaction with law enforcement, in broken English. Appellant told Officer Sallee
which started as a consensual encounter, escalated that he lived in an apartment across the street and
into an investigative detention. We reverse the had left his identification at home, but he offered
judgment of the court of appeals and remand the to write his name down. Officer Starks walked to
case to that court to determine whether the inves- the passenger side of the vehicle to retrieve a fin-
tigative detention was supported by reasonable gerprinting device.
suspicion.
While Appellant was writing his name, Officer
In December 2018, Officer J. Sallee and Officer C. Sallee asked Appellant if he had ever been arrest-
Starks were patrolling an area of southwest ed. Appellant responded that he had previously

Sept. / Oct. 2024 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 25