Page 55 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

and was frisked for weapons. However, contrary to appellants claims, his detention was not based solely on the
word of an unreliable anonymous tipster. Rather, the totality of the circumstances established reasonable
suspicion to support the scope and duration of the officers investigatory detention. In addition to the description
and location of the van, the tip not only contained a detailed description of appellant, but also identified him by
name. While the specificity of this tip contains indicia of reliability, we need not decide whether this tip alone
supported reasonable suspicion because Officer Zimpelman had additional facts before making his investigatory
detention. This investigatory detention was not based solely on the anonymous 911 call. In addition to the tip,

Officers discovered appellant in a high-crime area, known for drug and weapons offenses,late at night;

He was dressed as the 911 caller had described and was named as the 911 caller had said;
He was sitting in the driver s seat of the van that the 911 caller had described with the key in the ignition,
but the engine off. He was just sitting there;

Appellant refused to comply with the officers request to show both of his hands, and he did so in a
suspicious manner.

When coupled with the specific anonymous tip that appellant was selling crack from that van, the
totality of circumstances established reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate the officers
suspicions.

The post-frisk detention was not unreasonable, nor was it unnecessarily prolonged. Although the officers
did not find any weapons or contraband during that frisk, the fact that appellant was not carrying a knife or a
firearm did not address their suspicion that he was selling drugs from the van or that more drugs were in the van.
To quickly confirm or dispel that suspicion, Officer Zimpelman called for a K-9 unit to make a walk-around
search of the van. Although the wait for the K-9 unit was only expected to take 15 to 25 minutes, appellant did
not wait at all. He took off running. This two-block flight only increased the officers suspicion that appellant
was engaged in illegal activity. Furthermore, attempted flight constituted its own offense, evading arrest or
detention.

In sum, appellants detention was supported by reasonable suspicion. The officers did not rely solely on
the content of an anonymous tip; other circumstances including the location, the time of night, and appellants
suspicious behavior, combined with the officers corroboration of innocent details of that tip, contributed to their
suspicion. Thus the initial investigatory detention of appellant was lawful, and the officers were diligent in
calling for a K-9 dog to confirm or dispel that original suspicion.

We also agree with the court of appeals that appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of the van,
but for somewhat different reasons that those relied upon by the trial or appellate courts. Although a person
generally has an expectation of privacy in a borrowed vehicle, appellant abandoned this expectation of privacy
by fleeing from the van.

Matthews v. State, No. PD-1341-13, Tex. Ct. Crim. Appeals, June 11, 2014.

SEARCH & SEIZURE. SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST. CELL PHONE OF ARRESTEE.
WARRANT NOW REQUIRED.

This is a consolidated opinion which addresses two cases on the issue of search incident to arrest
involving a cell phone. These two cases raise a common question: whether police may, without a warrant, search
digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

Riley was arrested for weapons charges after a traffic stop. The arresting officer looked at data on Rileys

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 48 2015 Edition