Marcus Keith Scott v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed March 27, 2024
    S  In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-22-00839-CR
    MARCUS KEITH SCOTT, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F22-00187-X
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Garcia, Breedlove, and Kennedy
    Opinion by Justice Garcia
    A jury convicted appellant of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and
    assessed punishment at four years in prison. In a single issue on appeal, appellant
    argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police did
    not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. We conclude the officers had
    reasonable suspicion that appellant might be armed and were concerned for officer
    safety. Because the temporary detention was constitutionally permissible we affirm
    the trial court’s judgment.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Appellant was seated on the passenger side of a parked vehicle one house
    down from a “trap house” where police were executing a narcotics search
    warrant.1Appellant was alone, and his eyes were on the trap house.
    Police walked by appellant’s vehicle and asked him to show his hands.
    Appellant lifted one hand but kept his right hand at his side. Appellant was asked to
    show his hands approximately eight times, but he did not comply.
    When an officer opened the back passenger door of the vehicle, appellant
    reached for his waistband with his left hand. Appellant put his right arm up and an
    officer grabbed it while appellant reached for his pants pocket with his left hand.
    Officers removed appellant from the vehicle.
    A handgun was found several feet away from where appellant landed.
    Appellant initially denied that it was his, but subsequently admitted that it was his
    gun.
    Appellant filed a motion to suppress, and the court conducted a pretrial
    hearing on the motion. Appellant argued that the officers lacked reasonable
    suspicion to detain him because he was legally parked, it was only 6:40 p.m., and
    1
    A “trap house” is defined as “a crack house, or the surroundings in which a drug dealer . . . would use
    to make their profit.” Dotson v. State, No. 12-13-00387-CR, 
    2015 WL 3522993
    , at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—
    Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 4, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also
    Dallas v. State, No. 05-17-00422-CR, 
    2018 WL 6566638
    , at *1 n.1, (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet.)
    (mem. op., not designated for publication) (Trap house is a drug house).
    –2–
    there was no reasonable basis for officers to believe he was engaged in criminal
    activity. The trial court denied the motion and the case was tried to a jury.
    The jury convicted appellant of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon
    and assessed punishment at four years in prison. This timely appeal followed.
    II. ANALYSIS
    A.    Standard of Review and Applicable Law
    We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for an abuse of
    discretion. Martinez v. State, 
    348 S.W.3d 919
    , 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In
    reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we apply a bifurcated standard of review.
    Brodnex v. State, 
    485 S.W.3d 432
    , 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Martinez, 
    348 S.W.3d at
    922–23. We give almost total deference to the trial court’s determination
    of the historical facts that the record supports, especially when the trial court’s fact
    findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Derichsweiler v.
    State, 
    348 S.W.3d 906
    , 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Amador v. State, 
    221 S.W.3d 666
    , 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Guzman v. State, 
    955 S.W.2d 85
    , 89 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1997)). We also defer to the trial court’s findings on questions of fact
    and mixed questions of law and fact that turn on the weight or credibility of the
    evidence. Brodnex, 
    485 S.W.3d at 436
    ; Wade v. State, 
    422 S.W.3d 661
    , 666–67
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Derichsweiler, 
    348 S.W.3d at 913
    .
    We review de novo the trial court’s determination of pure questions of law,
    the application of the law to established facts, and the legal significance of those
    –3–
    facts. Lerma v. State, 
    543 S.W.3d 184
    , 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Wade, 422
    S.W.3d at 667; Kothe v. State, 
    152 S.W.3d 54
    , 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing
    United States v. Sharpe, 
    470 U.S. 675
    , 682 (1985)). We also review de novo mixed
    questions of law and fact that are not dependent upon credibility determinations.
    Brodnex, 
    485 S.W.3d at 436
    .
    If the record is silent regarding the reasons for the trial court’s ruling, as in
    the case before us, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
    court’s ruling, infer the necessary fact findings that support the trial court’s ruling if
    the evidence supports those findings, and assume that the trial court made implicit
    findings to support its ruling. State v. Garcia-Cantu, 
    253 S.W.3d 236
    , 241 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2008). When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court is the
    exclusive trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Maxwell v. State,
    
    73 S.W.3d 278
    , 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). As such, the trial court may choose to
    believe or to disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony. State v. Ross, 
    32 S.W.3d 853
    , 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Therefore, we will sustain the trial court’s
    ruling on a motion to suppress, regardless of whether the trial court granted or denied
    the motion, if it is supported by the record and if it is correct under any applicable
    theory of law. Lerma, 
    543 S.W.3d at 190
    ; Ross, 
    32 S.W.3d at
    855–56.
    The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against
    unreasonable searches and seizures. Atkins v. State, 
    882 S.W.2d 910
    , 912 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d); see U.S. CONST. amend. IV. But not
    –4–
    every encounter between law enforcement officers and citizens implicates
    constitutional protections. Hunter v. State, 
    955 S.W.2d 102
    , 104 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1997). Interactions between law enforcement officers and citizens are often
    characterized as consensual encounters, investigative detentions, or arrests. State v.
    Woodard, 
    341 S.W.3d 404
    , 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Crain v. State, 
    315 S.W.3d 43
    , 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Arrests require either a warrant or probable
    cause, while investigative detentions constitute brief seizures that are less intrusive
    than arrests and require only reasonable suspicion. Derichsweiler, 
    348 S.W.3d at
    914–17; Amador, 275 S.W.3d at 878.
    When evaluating the reasonableness of an investigative detention, we conduct
    the inquiry set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Terry to determine
    whether (1) the officer’s action was justified at its inception; and (2) it was
    reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified the
    interference. See Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
    , 19–20 (1968); Davis v. State, 
    947 S.W.2d 240
    , 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
    Under the first part of the inquiry, an officer’s reasonable suspicion justifies
    an investigative detention. Davis, 
    947 S.W.2d at
    242–43. Specifically, the officer
    must have a reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is occurring
    or has occurred. 
    Id. at 244
    . An officer has “reasonable suspicion to detain a person
    if he has specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those
    facts, would lead him reasonably to conclude that the person detained is, has been,
    –5–
    or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.” State v. Elias, 
    339 S.W.3d 667
    , 674
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Ford v. State, 
    158 S.W.3d 488
    , 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
    Reasonable suspicion is a lower measure of suspicion than probable cause, and
    probable cause “falls far short of a preponderance of the evidence standard.”
    Baldwin v. State, 
    278 S.W.3d 367
    , 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Reasonable
    suspicion is also an objective standard that disregards any subjective intent of the
    officer making the stop and looks solely to whether an objective basis for the stop
    exists. Ford, 
    158 S.W.3d at 492
    .
    B.    Was the Temporary Detention Unreasonable?
    Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth Wolverton, the officer initiating the detention,
    testified at the suppression hearing. The police were in the process of executing a
    narcotics search warrant when appellant was approached and detained. Sergeant
    Wolverton described a narcotics warrant as a dynamic process where police use
    speed and surprise to get inside a home quickly. If people are located outside the
    target house, police will move them to a safer location or try to give them a heads
    up about what is going on. Police do this in case the suspects inside the target home
    start shooting or fleeing into the street.
    Sergeant Wolverton testified that police frequently encounter suspects on the
    sidewalk and in vehicles outside the house. He explained that trap houses commonly
    employ a “good eye,” an individual who stations himself one or two houses away
    and acts as a lookout for the people inside. A good eye alerts the occupants of a trap
    –6–
    house that police are coming so they can evade the police and destroy evidence.
    Customers also commonly park one house down from a trap house so as to not arouse
    suspicion or draw attention to the house.
    Sergeant Wolverton’s body camera recording was admitted into evidence and
    played for the court. He pointed out appellant’s vehicle, parked one house down
    from the trap house, which was a common area for trap house customers or lookouts
    to park. Sergeant Wolverton saw appellant sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle
    with his eyes on the trap house. The vehicle was not running, and Sergeant
    Wolverton told the SWAT team to watch the car.
    Sergeant Wolverton initially turned his head back towards the house before
    he returned his attention to appellant’s vehicle and commanded appellant to “show
    his hands.” He did so because he did not know if appellant was a potential suspect
    tied to the trap house. Sergeant Wolverton testified:
    It’s a safety thing for me and for them. Once you see their hands, they’re
    usually not that much of a threat anymore if their hands are empty. If
    they refuse to show their hands, there’s usually something they’re
    trying to hide.
    Sergeant Wolverton became suspicious when appellant did not show his
    hands and kept his right hand down by his side. He testified that someone might not
    raise their hands when directed because they are “defian[t] toward law enforcement
    in general,” or they could have something in their hands that “they’re not supposed
    to have,” such as contraband or a weapon.
    –7–
    Sergeant Wolverton and other officers instructed appellant to put his hands up
    around eight times. Appellant finally acknowledged Sergeant Wolverton with a hand
    gesture, but he kept his right arm down by his side. When another officer opened the
    back passenger-side door of the vehicle, appellant reached for his waistband with his
    left arm. Sergeant Wolverton explained that the waistband is “a common place
    where people carry their guns.” Appellant put his right arm up, and the officer near
    the back seat door grabbed it while appellant simultaneously reached towards his
    pants pocket with his left hand. Officers then removed appellant from the vehicle.
    Sergeant Wolverton testified that, looking back, appellant did have a gun in
    his hand, and reviewing the video still makes him uneasy. Considering the totality
    of the circumstances, he believes his contact with, and detention of appellant was
    justified.
    When considering the reasonableness of a detention, allowances must be
    made for the fact that officers often make quick decisions under tense, uncertain, and
    rapidly changing circumstances. Rhodes v. State, 
    945 S.W.2d 115
    , 118 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1997). As Sergeant Wolverton established, such circumstances were present
    here. As depicted on the video, the scene was loud and chaotic with lights flashing,
    officers shouting, and loud concussive sounds.2 A narcotics search warrant was
    being executed at a trap house and appellant appeared to be acting as a lookout for
    2
    Sargent Wolverton explained at trial that these sounds were flash-bangs, which are used as
    diversionary devices.
    –8–
    the target house. See State v. Kerwick, 
    393 S.W.3d 270
    , 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
    (facts must show unusual activity, some evidence that connects the defendant to the
    unusual activity, and some evidence the unusual activity is related to crime); see also
    U.S. v. Arvizu, 
    534 U.S. 266
    , 273 (2002) (nervous behavior coupled with other
    factors such a presence at a drug house can be considered in determining reasonable
    suspicion). Appellant’s refusal to raise his hands and movement toward his pocket
    and waistband caused Sergeant Wolverton to be concerned about officer safety. See
    Lerma, 
    543 S.W.3d at 191
     (officer justified in conducting pat-down if reasonably
    believes suspect is armed and dangerous); Worthey v. State, 
    805 S.W.2d 435
    , 439
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (appellant’s sudden movement following instruction not to
    move hands raised a safety concern).
    Appellant argues the gun was not located until eight minutes after he was
    removed from the vehicle and there was no evidence linking him to the gun before
    it was found. These facts, however, were not before the court at the suppression
    hearing. We review the trial court’s determination in light of the evidence before it
    at the time the court’s ruling was made. Weatherred v. State, 
    15 S.W.3d 540
    , 542
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Colter v. State, Nos. 05-08-0016-CR, 05-08-00017-CR,
    
    2018 WL 6259040
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication).
    Further, appellant argues the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to
    detain him after he was removed from the car. This argument is misplaced. The
    –9–
    length of the detention was not raised at the suppression hearing and is therefore not
    within the scope of our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. But even if the argument
    had been raised, there is nothing in the suppression hearing record that establishes
    the length of the detention.
    On the record before us, considering the totality of the circumstances, a
    reasonable officer in Sergeant Wolverton’s position could have reasonably
    suspected that appellant might be armed, and officers’ safety was in peril. See Terry,
    
    392 U.S. at
    21–22, 27. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying appellant’s
    motion to suppress. Appellant’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment
    is affirmed.
    /Dennise Garcia/
    DENNISE GARCIA
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
    220839F.U05
    –10–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    MARCUS KEITH SCOTT,                           On Appeal from the Criminal District
    Appellant                                     Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F22-00187-X.
    No. 05-22-00839-CR          V.                Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
    Justices Breedlove and Kennedy
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                  participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
    AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered March 27, 2024
    –11–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-22-00839-CR

Filed Date: 3/27/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/3/2024