Page 31 - TPA Journal March April 2024

Accordingly, we have said that “[t]he determina- Article 14.03(a)(1)’s “suspicious places.” Failing
tion of whether a place is a ‘suspicious place’ is a that, the State alternatively asserts that exigency
highly fact-specific analysis” because “few, if any, exists under the facts of this case. Regardless of
places are suspicious in and of themselves.” whether exigent circumstances are absolutely
“Rather, additional facts available to an officer required under Article 14.03(a)(1), we find that
plus reasonable inferences from those facts in there were exigent circumstances in this case to
relation to a particular place may arouse justifiable justify a warrantless arrest. If ever there was a case
suspicion.” Though several different factors “may to be made for exigency, this case defines it. As a
be used to justify the determination of a place as result, there is no need to disavow Swain at this
suspicious,” this Court has recognized at least one time. Exigent circumstances to execute a warrant-
important factor common to most scenarios: “The less arrest is supported throughout the record.
time frame between the crime and the apprehen- Although there may be a case to made in the future
sion of a suspect in a suspicious place is short.” with different facts that may not satisfy Article
This Court and a number of the courts of appeals 14.03 (a)(1), those facts are not before us and there
have consequently found suspects lawfully arrest- is no need to go down that road. 30 We are not in
ed in “suspicious places” where (1) the suspect the business of issuing advisory opinions to
was arrested at a crime scene or somewhere linked unknown facts.
to it, (2) shortly after a crime had taken place, and
(3) the totality of the facts known to the police A review of the facts known to police show prob-
officer objectively point to the suspect’s guilt in able cause to arrest “pointed like a beacon
the commission of a felony or other breach of the toward[s]” Appellee.
peace under 14.03(a)(1). Though he was at a gas station, Appellee was only
a short distance from the crash site—only a tenth
The appellate court below found suppression war- of a mile away and only a short time after the esti-
ranted because the State relied on but failed to ful- mated time of the crash. There were motorcycle
fill the requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. parts lodged in the grill of his truck that he could
14.03(a)(1). We note again there was no hearing or not explain. Evidence at the crash site showed that
evidence received by Judge Elliott, he simply Stidman, the victim, was hit while riding his
relied on the record from the prior hearings. motorcycle and was dragged roughly 829 feet.
Although the question of exigent circumstances Stidman died at the scene. Appellee’s wife who
was never argued in the suppression briefs and was riding in the passenger seat during the colli-
hearing, the court below relied on our opinion in sion told Appellee that he had “hit a person.”
Swain v. State to require exigency as a required Furthermore, Appellee had made calls to his moth-
condition under the definition of “persons found er and two law enforcement friends and admitted
in suspicious places” in Article 14.03(a)(1). Thus, that he “hit something.” In addition to finding a
under the court of appeals’ interpretation, Article cooler full of beer in Appellee’s truck bed, police
14.03(a)(1) requires “(1) probable cause existed, observed Appellee to have a strong odor of alco-
(2) the person was found in a suspicious place, and hol, bloodshot glassy eyes, and a dazed look on his
(3) ‘exigent circumstances call for immediate face. Finally, Appellee refused to submit to stan-
action or detention by police.’” Opining that the dard field sobriety testing. These facts were suffi-
State failed to provide evidence showing exigent cient to warrant an objectively prudent person to
circumstances (even though the question was believe that Appellee had committed intoxication
never argued at the trial level), the court of manslaughter if not felony murder. He had also
appeals affirmed the suppression of the arrest and failed to stop and render aid in a motor collision
evidence flowing from it. resulting in serious injury. Alternatively, police
also had probable cause to believe that Appellee
The State now asks this Court to disavow Swain had unlawfully caused the death of another.
and remove the exigency requirement under

March/April 2024 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 27