Page 37 - July August 2020 TPA Journal

vehicles registered to other people to avoid they together gave Windham much more than a
forfeiture. mere “hunch” of illegal activity.
• Throughout the stop, Reyes took unusual
measures to protect the truck. She initially refused [cases cited by the defendant are distinguished by
the Court.]
to exit it. And when she did, she locked it, even
though an officer was immediately behind it in a
Reyes contends that she was entitled to Miranda
marked patrol vehicle.
warnings because “the circumstances and
• Reyes offered inconsistent and implausible
interactions of Reyes and Officer Windham would
stories about the purpose of her travel—for
have [led] a reasonable person to believe they
instance, stating that she had driven three hours to
were under arrest.” That argument falls flat,
take kids to school, even though there were no
because a person detained in a routine traffic stop
passengers.
is not “in custody” for Miranda purposes.
• Reyes had a conviction for possession of meth.
Miranda applies only once “a suspect’s freedom
• Reyes was unemployed, which Windham
of action is curtailed to a degree associated with
figured provided her a motive to participate in
formal arrest.”
illegal activity.
• When Windham asked Reyes whether there was Reyes offers no persuasive reason why Miranda
anything illegal in the truck—a “yes or no” demands the suppression of her statements during
question—her facial expressions changed a routine traffic stop. Windham directed her to his
dramatically, and she said, “There shouldn’t be. car in a friendly manner. He even encouraged her
It’s brand new. It’s brand new.” to bring her coffee with her and sit in the front
seat. She was not patted down or restrained, and
Windham allowed her to leave the car to smoke a
Additionally, Windham drew on his training, cigarette. Because the traffic stop did not have the
education, and experience in narcotics quality of a formal arrest, Miranda does not apply.
interdiction, and his familiarity with the area, to
surmise from those facts his suspicion that Reyes AFFIRMED.
was participating in a crime. Those articulable
th
facts—and, in particular, Reyes’s implausible U.S. v. Reyes, 5 th Cir. no. 19-10291, June 05 ,
stories and protectiveness of the vehicle— 2020.
combine to establish reasonable suspicion.
Reyes avers that “[e]very one of the observations
of Officer Windham are either specifically
disclaimed by caselaw as not rising to the level of
reasonable suspicion, or are analogous to other
facts the caselaw disclaims.” Reyes’s divide-and-
conquer approach, however, ignores “the
Supreme Court’s admonition not to treat each
factor in isolation, but rather to give due regard to
the totality of the circumstances.” Although
EVIDENCE – HEARSAY TESTIMONY
Reyes may have an innocent explanation for each
of her actions—and some of them, such as that A jury convicted Michael Maes of crimes
she came from the Dallas/Fort Worth area, stemming from a methamphetamine distribution
provide little support for reasonable suspicion— and money laundering conspiracy. The district

July/August 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 33