Page 35 - Texas Police Journal November- December 2013

cle fitting that descriptiona tan or brownish Taurus be aware of every fact that objectively supports a reason-
pulling away from the side of the pool. The officer fol- able suspicion to detain; the cumulative information
lowed the car, received information that the police dis- known to the cooperating officers at the time of the stop is
patcher still had the informant on the phone, and con- to be considered in making the reasonable-suspicion
firmed that the patrol car was behind the correct vehicle. determination. A 911 police dispatcher is ordinarily
He testified that, based on the information at hand, he regarded as such a cooperating officer for purposes of
made a traffic stop of that vehicle, identified appellant as making this determination. Still, specific, rticulable facts
the driver of that vehicle, and observed a camera beside are required to provide a basis for finding reasonable sus-
the vehicles console. A second officer arrived and picion. Mere opinions are ineffective substitutes for spe-
remained with appellant while the first officer returned to cific, articulable facts in a reasonable-suspicion analysis.
the swimming pool and identified and spoke with the pool The totality of circumstances, including the cumulative
manager, who had made the call to police dispatch. information known to the cooperating officers at the time
The first officer returned to appellant and requested and of the stop, was that an unknown male in a described vehi-
received verbal consent from cle was taking photographs at a public pool. Photographs
appellant to look through the photographs stored on are routinely taken of people in public places, including at
appellants digital camera. Those photographs depicted public beaches, where bathing suits are also commonly
the pool area, its surroundings, and people, primarily worn, and at concerts, festivals, and sporting events.
females in bathing suits, many of whom were young girls. Taking photographs of people at such public venues is not
The camera also contained photographs of people in a unusual, suspicious, or criminal.
place that the officer could not identify. The two officers The generally matching description of the vehicle sim-
advised appellant that he was detained and that they ply connects appellant to the suspicious photography,
would like him to make a statement in reference to the but does not in any way suggest that, by taking pictures in
photos. After receiving Miranda3 warnings at the Cuero a public place, appellant was, had been, or soon would be,
Police Department, appellant made a statement, which engaged in criminal activity. And since there was no indi-
was written out for appellant by one of the officers. The cation of crime being afoot, leaving the scene of such pho-
face of the written statement contained the required statu- tography does not constitute flight or evasion. Likewise,
tory warnings. In the statement, appellant acknowledged the fact that the pool manager remained in contact with the
taking photos of women and a girl in bathing suits, but dispatcher and confirmed that the initial officer was
asserted that the photos were taken just to see if the pic- behind the suspect vehicle does not in any way indicate
tures come out good. that crime was afoot.
When police conduct a warrantless search or seizure, Given the record before us, we hold both that there was
the state has the burden to show that the officer had rea- insufficient evidence to establish reasonable suspicion for
sonable suspicion to believe that an individual was violat- the stop of appellants vehicle and that the investigatory
ing the law. We have held that the officer must have spe- detention ofappellant was not supported by reasonable
cific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational suspicion. The court of appeals erred in affirming the trial
inferences therefrom, lead him to reasonably conclude that courts denial of appellants suppression motions and its
a particular person actually is, has been, or soon will be, judgments. We reverse the judgments of the court of
engaged in criminal activity. This standard is objective, appeals and remand these causes to the trial court for fur-
thus there need be only an objective basis for the stop; the ther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant. Arguellez v. State. No. PD 997 12, Tex. Ct. Crim.
We have noted that actions in a series may each seem App., Sept. 18th, 2013.
innocent enough in isolation. If, however, when examined
in the context of the totality of the circumstances, they rea-
sonably suggest recent or imminent criminal conduct, an
investigative detention is justified. The relevant inquiry
is not whether particular conduct is innocent or criminal,
but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular non-
criminal acts. The detaining officer need not personally

www
Nov./Dec. 2013 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 33