DWI 500 120 v. << (2011)

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Appellant filed a motion to suppress any evidence discovered as a result of the detention.  Appellant argued that the officer had only vague and limited information of questionable reliability and that he did not have a reasonable suspicion of any connection to criminal activity. At the subsequent suppression hearing, Fort Worth police officer Gregory Riddle was the only witness to testify.  He testified that he was a college graduate who had been a certified peace officer for sixteen years.  His duties were to answer calls made by citizens, conduct traffic stops, and make investigations when necessary.  At approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2009, Officer Riddle was stopped at a traffic light in his marked patrol car at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Rosedale Street in Fort Worth when a nervous and excited black male, perceived by the officer to be twelve-to-thirteen years old, approached and told him, The guy in that car tried to get me in the car, pointing at a red Mustang convertible located eastbound on Rosedale.  Officer Riddle motioned to Officer Garcia, another police officer who was behind him, to come with him.  The officers then made a U-turn and stopped the red convertible that Appellant was driving.  The boy, Anthony McFarland, was present at the scene of the detention. When asked why he had stopped the vehicle, Officer Riddle stated:  “Based on what I was told by the witness, I felt I had reasonable suspicion to stop this vehicle because it could have been a possible abduction, kidnapping.  I didn't know ․ Just the limited amount of what the witness had told me, I felt I had enough reasonable suspicion to stop.  On cross-examination, when asked whether McFarland had mentioned any physical contact or threat of force, Officer Riddle stated, “Not initially.”  At the end of the suppression hearing, Appellant's counsel was granted permission to furnish the trial court a memorandum of law on the issue of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the detention in question. On December 10, 2009, the court stated After reviewing all the submitted authorities, Im going to deny the motion to suppress, and I will note these facts for the record:  That Officer Riddle, while in the vicinity of where these events occurred, was approached by a youth that appeared to be between the ages of 12 and 13 years of age, who had a nervous demeanor, who made the comment to the officer that an individual had tried to get him in a car, at which time he pointed out the vehicle and identified the vehicle driven by the [defendant] as the vehicle with the person that tried to get him in a car. Those are the facts the Court finds significant prior to a stop occurring.  The Court will note that the essence of a detention is, when an officer is presented with ambiguous facts, for the officer to make a temporary detention of the individual to determine whether or not further investigation is warranted.  And in keeping with that logic, the Court will find the detention of the [d]efendant in this case was appropriate and will deny the motion to suppress.  Thats the Courts order.  After the conclusion of this hearing, a plea bargain was reached in which the State waived the enhancement paragraph of the information.  The Appellant pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, Class B misdemeanor DWI. The trial court assessed a fine of $500 and sentenced Appellant to 120 days in jail, but it suspended imposition of the confinement portion and placed Appellant on community supervision.

NO. 02–10–00190–CR

Decided: May 31, 2011