Marc Anthony Rayos v. State ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00379-CR
___________________________
MARC ANTHONY RAYOS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 371st District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1524482D
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In two issues, Appellant Marc Anthony Rayos appeals his conviction for
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety
Code Ann. § 481.112. We affirm.
Background
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of
drugs discovered when officers searched his vehicle after arresting him for public
intoxication. The facts, as testified to by Euless Police Department Officer Shawn
Buschee and Officer Patrick Cunningham and as depicted in the recording of a body
camera worn by Officer Buschee’s partner, Officer Mitchell, are undisputed.
I. The arrest
In the early hours of November 11, 2017, a concerned citizen called 911 to
report a vehicle parked at a RaceTrac gas station with two flat tires and body damage
and an apparently impaired driver possibly in need of medical attention. When
Officer Buschee and Officer Mitchell arrived, they observed Appellant standing
outside of a pickup truck with body damage and two flat tires on the passenger side.
Officer Buschee testified that he immediately noticed that Appellant’s speech was
slurred, he was “somewhat unsteady on his feet,” and his breath smelled of alcohol.
Appellant admitted to Officer Mitchell that he had had about ten drinks that
evening. After administering a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and observing
all six possible clues of intoxication, Officer Buschee placed Appellant under arrest
2
for public intoxication. At the time of arrest, Office Buschee explained to Appellant
that he would probably spend about six hours in jail before being released later that
morning.
II. The vehicle search
On the video, Appellant told Officer Mitchell that he was waiting for his wife1
to pick him up. When the officers asked if he needed anything out of the truck—like
his cell phone—Appellant responded, “No. My wife has it.” When Officer Mitchell
asked how Appellant called his wife to come pick him up at the RaceTrac if his wife
had the phone, Appellant responded that he had called his wife before he left his
friend’s house earlier and said he was on his way home but acknowledged that she
could not know that he had damaged the truck and was now at the RaceTrac. After
they frisked Appellant and before they moved him to the patrol car, Officer Buschee
pointed out that the truck was damaged, to which Appellant responded, “Yeah, it’s
f***** up,” and admitted that he did not have two spare tires to change both flats.
When Officer Buschee asked, “Are the keys in it, is it locked up?” Appellant
answered, “No.” When Officer Buschee asked where the keys were, Appellant
responded that he did not know and did not have them on him. Officer Buschee
directed Officer Mitchell to look in the truck for the keys, and upon opening the truck
1
Appellant initially referred to a “girlfriend” but later referred to his “wife.”
From the context, it appears he was referring to one person. For simplicity, we will
refer to her as his wife.
3
door, Officer Mitchell smelled an odor of marijuana. He then found a scale, and
inside the truck console, he found a baggie of cocaine, a jar full of marijuana, and
bundles of cash.
At the hearing, Officer Buschee testified that he directed Officer Mitchell to get
the keys because the vehicle was going to be impounded and inventoried pursuant to
EPD policy allowing the impoundment of inoperable vehicles or if the driver is
placed under arrest. The State introduced evidence of EPD policy allowing police to
impound a vehicle when a driver is arrested or if “a vehicle is rendered inoperable due
to an accident.”
III. The arguments and ruling
At the hearing, Appellant argued that the officers did not have probable cause
to search the vehicle and that the EPD impoundment policy was improper because it
allowed the officers unlimited discretion to search and inventory a vehicle without
probable cause. The trial court disagreed, denied the motion to suppress, and found
that “the vehicle was subject to discretionary impoundment based on the policies that
have been introduced.” This appeal followed.
Discussion
Appellant brings two issues on appeal.2 In his first, he argues that the EPD
impoundment and inventory policy cannot justify Officer Mitchell’s search of the
2
Appellant organized his argument in two issues but listed five issues in his
“Issues Presented.” Because we have determined that his list of five issues is merely
4
truck because the policy allows the officers “unlimited discretion.” In his second, he
challenges the inventory of the truck on the basis that it was the fruit of an unlawful
seizure of the truck and on the basis that the officers allegedly did not follow EPD
inventory-search protocol.
I. Standard of Review
We apply a bifurcated standard of review to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress evidence. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007);
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We defer almost totally to
a trial court’s rulings on questions of historical fact and application-of-law-to-fact
questions that turn on evaluating credibility and demeanor, but we review de novo
application-of-law-to-fact questions that do not turn on credibility and demeanor.
Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673; Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 607 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005); Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652–53 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
Stated another way, when reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a suppression
motion, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling. Wiede,
214 S.W.3d at 24; State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When
the record is silent on the reasons for the trial court’s ruling, or when there are no
explicit fact findings and neither party timely requested findings and conclusions from
the trial court, we imply the necessary fact findings that would support the trial court’s
listing subissues of his two overall issues, we have organized this opinion to follow the
organization of the brief.
5
ruling if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling,
supports those findings. State v. Garcia-Cantu, 253 S.W.3d 236, 241 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008); see Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 25. We then review the trial court’s legal ruling
de novo unless the implied fact findings supported by the record are also dispositive
of the legal ruling. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d at 819. Even if the trial court gave the wrong
reason for its ruling, we must uphold the ruling if it is both supported by the record
and correct under any applicable legal theory. State v. Stevens, 235 S.W.3d 736, 740
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Armendariz v. State, 123 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003).
II. The impoundment
To be lawful, a decision to impound a vehicle must be reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment. Roberts v. State, 444 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2014, pet. ref’d). The State bears the burden to prove a lawful impoundment. Id.
Whether an impoundment is reasonable is a question of law that we review de novo,
measuring reasonableness by examining the totality of the circumstances. Ohio v.
Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421 (1996); see also Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d
54, 62–63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). In the process we must balance the public interest
and the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary detentions and intrusions. Kothe,
152 S.W.3d at 63. Nevertheless, we have previously noted the significantly lower
degree of privacy one should expect when it comes to his vehicle compared to his
home or office and that vehicles are subject to pervasive and continuing governmental
6
regulation and controls. Roberts, 444 S.W.3d at 774 (citing South Dakota v. Opperman,
428 U.S. 364, 367–68, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 3096 (1976)).
The court of criminal appeals has observed that there are many circumstances
under which law enforcement may reasonably impound a vehicle, including (1) the
driver’s arrest when the arrest is reasonably connected to the vehicle; (2) statutory
authorization; (3) vehicle abandonment or a vehicle that is hazardous and presents a
danger to the public; (4) a reasonable belief that the vehicle is stolen; (5) vehicle
removal from an accident scene; and (6) parking violations. Id. at 776 (citing Benavides
v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); and Opperman, 428
U.S. at 368–69, 96 S. Ct. at 3097) (explaining that in the interest of public safety and
as part of a community caretaking function, vehicles are frequently taken into police
custody for, among other things, vehicle accidents and other caretaking and traffic-
control activities).
Appellant argues that the EPD impoundment policy cannot justify the
impoundment of Appellant’s truck because it leaves the decision to impound a vehicle
to the “unfettered discretion” of police officers. This argument has been previously
rejected, and we do not find Appellant’s attempt to resurrect it convincing. See
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375, 107 S. Ct. 738, 743 (1987) (rejecting argument
that inventory search of van was unconstitutional “because departmental regulations
gave the police discretion to choose between impounding the van and parking and
locking it in a public parking place”). As the United States Supreme Court explained
7
in Bertine, “Nothing . . . prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that
discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something
other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.” Id., 107 S. Ct. at 743. In that
case, the court declined to find a violation of the Fourth Amendment when “[t]here
was no showing that the police chose to impound [the defendant]’s van in order to
investigate suspected criminal activity.” Id. at 376, 107 S. Ct. at 743.3
In this case, the State provided evidence of EPD’s written policy allowing
officers to impound vehicles if the driver has been placed under arrest or if the
driver’s vehicle is rendered inoperable due to an accident. Officer Buschee testified
that he impounded the truck because it was inoperable and Appellant was under
arrest, and there is no evidence that Officer Buschee or Officer Mitchell acted in bad
faith or used the policy as an excuse to search for additional evidence of a crime. See
id. There is no dispute that Appellant’s truck was inoperable—Appellant admitted as
much at the scene. The trial court could have found that the officers were entitled to
disbelieve Appellant’s statement that his wife was on the way and therefore
determined that nobody was en route to repair or retrieve the truck. See Uballe v. State,
No. 07-13-00127-CR, 2014 WL 1829849, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 6, 2014,
Appellant also relies heavily on United States v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346 (7th Cir.
3
1996), to support his argument, but it is easily distinguishable from the case at hand.
In Duguay, there was no written police policy or “well-honed department routine”
regarding impoundment in effect at the time of the arrest, impoundment, and
inventory search. Id. at 351. And the two arresting officers’ explanations for
impounding the defendant’s car conflicted. Id. at 352.
8
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that impoundment was
reasonable when appellant was arrested, no other driver was present to take
possession of the vehicle, and appellant did not argue that there were alternatives to
impounding the vehicle). Appellant asks us to conclude that the officers could have
left the truck in the RaceTrac parking lot, but that is not the standard to be applied.
We are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
implied factual findings, and here the trial court could have reasonably concluded that
the RaceTrac was not a safe place to leave the unlocked and damaged truck.4 See also
Bertine, 479 U.S. at 374, 107 S. Ct. at 742 (“The reasonableness of any particular
governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of
alternative ‘less intrusive’ means.”) (quoting Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647, 103
S. Ct. 2605, 2610 (1983)).
We therefore overrule Appellant’s arguments challenging the impoundment of
his vehicle.
4
We are not swayed by Appellant’s reliance on decisions from other
jurisdictions indicating that an impoundment is not reasonable when a defendant is
arrested for a low-level offense that risks a short amount of time spent in custody. Cf.
Roberts, 444 S.W.3d at 775–76 (upholding impoundment after initial arrest for expired
registration, lack of a valid driver’s license, and no proof of financial responsibility);
Josey v. State, 981 S.W.2d 831, 836 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d)
(discussing impoundment after arrest for minor traffic violations).
9
III. The inventory search
Appellant’s challenge of the search of his pickup truck is three-fold: first, he
argues that the inventory search was unlawful because the impoundment was
unlawful. Because we have overruled his challenge to the impoundment of the
vehicle, we overrule this argument.
In his second argument, Appellant challenges the search on the basis that the
inventory search was not conducted pursuant to EPD policy requiring a written
“vehicle inventory search.” But Appellant did not present this argument to the trial
court. To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to the
trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds, if not
apparent from the context, for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Thomas v.
State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). We therefore overrule this
portion of Appellant’s argument.
Finally, Appellant argues that the search was not justified under the automobile
exception because the officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle until
they had already opened the truck door. But we have already held that the
impoundment of the vehicle was lawful, thereby permitting the officers to open the
truck door to begin an inventory search. See Moskey v. State, 333 S.W.3d 696, 700 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (“A police officer’s inventory of the
contents of an automobile is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if conducted
pursuant to a lawful impoundment of the vehicle.”) (citing Opperman, 428 U.S. at 375–
10
76, 96 S. Ct. at 3100; Benavides, 600 S.W.2d at 810; and Garza v. State, 137 S.W.3d 878,
882 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d)). Once Officer Mitchell opened
the truck door and smelled the odor of marijuana, he had probable cause to search the
vehicle under the automobile exception. See Bogan v. State, No. 02-15-00354-CR, 2016
WL 1163725, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 24, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (“The smell of marijuana alone is sufficient to constitute
probable cause to search a defendant’s person, vehicle, or objects within the vehicle.”)
(citing Small v. State, 977 S.W.2d 771, 774–75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.);
Luera v. State, 561 S.W.2d 497, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)). We therefore overrule
the remainder of Appellant’s second issue.
Conclusion
Having overruled Appellant’s arguments, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: September 5, 2019
11