By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Evidence of curfew violation and marijuana use
provided reasonable suspicion for investigatory detention (99-4-13)
On September 30, 1999, the San Antonio
Court of Appeals held that an investigatory detention of appellant was justified
by reasonable suspicion that he was in violation of the juvenile nocturnal
curfew and was part of a group of young men who had been using marijuana.
99-4-13. In the Matter of R.M., ___ S.W.2d ___, No. 04-98-00883-CV, 1999 WL
777879, 1999 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.—San Antonio 9/30/99)[Texas Juvenile
Law 296 (4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: The jury found that R.M. engaged in the delinquent conduct of possession
of cocaine in an amount more than one gram but less than four grams. Following a
disposition hearing, the court committed R.M. to the Texas Youth Commission. In
his sole issue on appeal, R.M. appeals the denial of his motion to suppress
physical evidence. R.M. urges that the police officers who detained him did not
have reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity.
Officer Williamson testified that he was patrolling the streets at approximately
4:45 a.m. when he observed a male, who appeared to be a juvenile, standing near
a vehicle in front of Diversions Game Room. Officer Williamson approached the
male to determine whether he was in violation of the juvenile curfew ordinance,
but the male went inside the game room. Officer Williamson then entered the game
room where he saw the male standing with a group of other young males. Because
the males appeared to be young, Officer Williamson asked them for
identification. Three of the males, including Evans, produced identification
that showed they were eighteen and nineteen but the other two males produced no
identification. Officer Williamson also noticed a strong odor of marihuana
emanating from the group.
Officer Williamson asked Evans, the male he had first seen, to accompany him
outside. Officer Williamson questioned Evans about the ages of the males who had
not produced identification. While Officer Williamson talked with Evans, the
other males began coming out of the game room. At this time, Officer Williamson
called for additional officers. Officers Phelan and Hernandez responded to the
call and lined the four males against the wall and told them to kneel. Officer
Williamson continued interviewing Evans near the vehicle he had seen Evans
standing near when he first approached Diversions Game Room. Officer Williamson
noticed a strong smell of marihuana coming from the vehicle. The windows of the
vehicle were open and Officer Williamson saw a large amount of a green leafy
substance on the floor and a shotgun shell in the backseat. Officer Williamson
then approached the males to perform a pat down of the outside of their pockets
for narcotics and wallets that might contain identification. While Officer
Williamson was patting down one of the males, R.M. began running toward the
street. The manager of Diversions Game Room had been outside watching the
investigation and attempted to stop R.M., but only managed to pull off R.M.'s
jacket. The officers began chasing R.M. and yelling at him to stop. After a few
blocks, R.M. was apprehended and taken to the police station. R.M.'s jacket was
recovered from the manager of Diversions Game room. Officer Williamson found a
baggy of cocaine in the outside breast pocket of the jacket.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: In his sole issue on appeal, R.M. contends that the court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because the officers did not have reasonable
suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. R.M. furthers contends that
the encounter turned into an illegal arrest. On a motion to suppress evidence,
we afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of
historical facts. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).
However, when the underlying facts are undisputed, the court's determination of
the law and the application of the law to the facts are reviewed de novo.
Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116
S.Ct. 1657, 1662-63 (1996) (finding de novo review of trial court's
determination of reasonable suspicion).
"The reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of
the totality of the circumstances and will be justified when the detaining
officer has specific articulable facts, which taken together with rational
inferences from those facts, lead him to conclude that the person detained
actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity." Woods
v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). In this case, Officer
Williamson testified that he approached the males because they looked young and
it was after the midnight curfew for juveniles. After approaching the males,
Officer Williamson testified that he noticed a strong smell of marihuana coming
from the group. Although some of the males produced identification showing that
they were not juveniles, R.M. and another male failed to produce any
identification. Because R.M. and the other male appeared to be young, the
officer was justified in investigating whether they were violating the curfew.
Further, the strong smell of marihuana also justified a further investigation.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Williamson had a reasonable
suspicion that R.M. was a curfew violator and the males had been using
marihuana. R.M. also urges that the temporary detention escalated into an
illegal arrest because the officer did not question R.M. See Burkes v. State,
830 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (finding that detention cannot be
considered investigatory when no investigation occurs). Under these facts, we
find that Officer Williamson was conducting an investigation into curfew
violations and marihuana possession but R.M. ran away before Officer Williamson
could question him. Thus, the investigatory detention was not transformed into
an illegal arrest. Accordingly, we find that the court did not err in denying
R.M.'s motion to suppress. We overrule his sole issue.