Page 31 - TPA Journal September October 2024

when evaluating a trial court’s ruling on a motion person would not feel free to decline the officer’s
to suppress. We afford almost total deference to a requests or terminate the encounter. “There is no
trial court’s determination of historical facts if bright line rule dictating when a consensual
supported by the record, especially when the encounter becomes a detention.” Rather, review-
factfinding is based on an evaluation of credibili- ing courts must “examine the totality of the cir-
ty and demeanor. However, we conduct a de novo cumstances to determine whether a reasonable
review when reviewing a trial court’s application person would have felt free to ignore the officer’s
of law to facts that do not depend on credibility request or to terminate the consensual encounter.”
and demeanor. The test to determine whether a citizen has been
detained is objective; the subjective intent or
“We view the record in the light most favorable to belief of the detainee or law enforcement is irrele-
the trial court’s ruling and uphold the ruling if it is vant.
supported by the record and is correct under any
theory of the law applicable to the case.” Ruiz v. A consensual encounter will not escalate into an
State, 577 S.W.3d 543, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. investigative detention solely because an officer
2019). However, if evidence is conclusive, such as asks a citizen for identification and permission to
indisputable video evidence, we may disregard search. Nor will a consensual encounter become
any trial court findings inconsistent with the con- an investigative detention merely because an offi-
clusive evidence. cer fails to inform the citizen that he does not have
to comply with the requests. However, an inves-
We review de novo a trial court’s application of tigative detention does occur if the officer conveys
the law of search and seizure to the facts. to the citizen that compliance with the requests is
Specifically, we review de novo whether a police- required.
citizen interaction amounts to a consensual
encounter or an investigative detention “because In determining whether an interaction is a consen-
that is an issue of law-the application of legal prin- sual encounter or an investigative detention, the
ciples to a specific set of facts.” “We review de “time, place, and surrounding circumstances must
novo the question of whether a consensual be taken into account, but the officer’s conduct is
encounter has advanced into a detention.” the most important factor[.]” This Court has also
used the factors in United States v. Mendenhall,
The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980), when assessing “what
right to be free from “unreasonable searches and a reasonable person might have perceived during
seizures[.]” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The law has a given interaction with an officer[.]” Under
recognized three types of police-citizen interac- Mendenhall,
tions related to searches and seizures: (1) consen- [e]xamples of circumstances that
sual encounters that do not implicate the Fourth might indicate a seizure, even where
Amendment; (2) investigative detentions that the person did not attempt to leave,
must be supported by a reasonable suspicion of would be the threatening presence of
criminal activity; and (3) arrests that are reason- several officers, the display of a
able only if supported by probable cause. weapon by an officer, some physical
touching of the person of the citizen,
An encounter is consensual only if the citizen is or the use of language or tone of voice
free to leave and terminate the interaction at any indicating that compliance with the
time. An encounter is a detention if an officer, officer’s request might be compelled.
through a showing of force or authority, restrains Our issue is whether the court of appeals erred in
a citizen to the point that an objectively reasonable affirming the trial court’s ruling and finding that

Sept. / Oct. 2024 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 27