Chadwick Smith v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ____________________
    NO. 09-17-00144-CR
    ____________________
    CHADWICK SMITH, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 356th District Court
    Hardin County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 23828
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    A grand jury indicted Appellant Chadwick Smith for the offense of possession
    of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or
    more but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West
    2017).1 Smith filed a motion to suppress, and after a hearing, the trial court denied
    the motion. Thereafter, Smith pleaded guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at
    1
    We cite to the current version of the statute as subsequent amendments do
    not affect our disposition.
    1
    eleven years’ confinement. In a single issue, Smith appeals the trial court’s denial of
    his motion to suppress. We affirm.
    Hearing on Motion to Suppress
    In his motion to suppress, Smith alleged that the evidence was seized pursuant
    to an “illegal stop, detention and/or arrest.” According to Smith, the stop was without
    probable cause or reasonable suspicion and any evidence seized or statements made
    should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful search and seizure.
    At the suppression hearing, the State conceded that there was no warrant for
    the search. Officer Justin Holt (the “Officer”) with the Silsbee Police Department
    testified that he stopped a motorcycle on the evening of June 3, 2015, because he
    could not see a legible license plate on the motorcycle. The Officer also explained
    that the paper tags “were all crinkled up and folded and dirty[,]” and although the
    motorcycle had a buyer’s tag, the tag was not legible due to its condition and how it
    was fastened. Upon further investigation, after stopping the motorcycle the Officer
    also noticed other violations. The Officer observed that the rear tire was extremely
    underinflated and the tread was wearing through to the cords. At the hearing, the
    Officer identified Smith as the person he stopped.
    The Officer explained that, upon stopping Smith, he also noted that “[t]he
    ignition wires appeared to have been cut, VIN numbers were ground down[]” and
    2
    the seat and fuel tank were not bolted down, and that he investigated whether the
    vehicle was stolen. Once he stopped the motorcycle, he could see that the front tire
    was also severely worn and was very slick. According to the Officer, he had dealt
    with Smith a couple of months earlier in a matter regarding methamphetamines and
    he had “firsthand knowledge” that he had “arrested the subject before with narcotics
    and with a weapon.” The Officer also explained that he communicated by radio with
    a sergeant at the Hardin County Sheriff’s Office Narcotics Division, and he recalled
    that the sergeant warned him of a possible weapon. According to the Officer, he also
    observed a rag or paper towel shoved into the “ram air induction system[.]” The
    Officer explained that nothing should have been in the air intake because that is
    where the air would channel into the air filter. Based on his observations of the
    vehicle, his knowledge of the suspect’s past history, plus his conversation with the
    Narcotics Division, the Officer was looking at “possible concealment of narcotics[]”
    and a “possible stolen vehicle.”
    The Officer “ran” the tags for the motorcycle, and the vehicle appeared to
    belong to Triangle Motors. The motorcycle plates were from Triangle Motors, and
    at the time of the stop, the Officer had an open investigation into Triangle Motors
    for illegal distribution of plates and narcotics. When he asked Smith where he got
    the motorcycle, Smith told the Officer that the motorcycle was acquired “from a
    3
    Harris County police auction.” And, Smith later told the Officer that his wife had a
    receipt for the motorcycle.
    The Officer testified that he asked Smith for consent to search the rear
    compartment of the motorcycle, or the area under the seat, and Smith gave consent.
    The Officer found a purple container that he felt may have been used to conceal
    narcotics but that he did not find any narcotics inside the container. The Officer
    explained that he then confronted Smith about what might be underneath the fuel
    tank, and Smith did not give him a direct answer. According to the Officer, Smith
    was very nervous and sweating profusely. Smith removed the rear seat, and the
    Officer removed the fuel tank, after which the Officer located a “little side box . . .
    inside the air box.” Inside the air box the Officer found approximately ten grams of
    methamphetamine.
    The Officer testified that he believed he had probable cause to search more
    than the rear compartment of the motorcycle based on his prior knowledge of Smith
    with drugs and guns, a radio communication from another officer to be on the
    lookout for Smith with drugs, a “paper towel wadded up in the air box that [he could]
    visually see[,]” his experience with motorcycles, the fact that Smith was sweating
    profusely, and the fact that Smith was in an “excited state[]” when he responded to
    the Officer’s questions. The Officer testified that he was personally familiar with the
    4
    model of the motorcycle that Smith was riding, and he explained as follows: “I have
    rebuilt them; repaired them; disassembled them down to motors, frames, swing arms,
    subframes, forks, front ends, wheels, the entire -- there is not a screw that I haven’t
    undone or put back together.” The State also offered into evidence a copy of the
    video of the stop taken from the Officer’s patrol vehicle.
    The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court did not enter findings
    of fact and conclusions of law, and the appellate record does not reflect that any were
    requested. Smith pleaded guilty and filed a motion for new trial that was overruled
    as a matter of law.
    Issue
    In a single issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
    denying his motion to suppress. According to the Appellant, his detention was
    unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 9 of the Texas
    Constitution because the search was based on the detaining officer’s “inarticulate
    hunches” that narcotics were being concealed on the motorcycle and, therefore, the
    officer lacked probable cause to search the motorcycle.
    Standard of Review
    We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated
    standard of review. Valtierra v. State, 
    310 S.W.3d 442
    , 447-48 (Tex. Crim. App.
    5
    2010). We review the trial court’s factual findings for an abuse of discretion, but
    review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts de novo. Turrubiate v.
    State, 
    399 S.W.3d 147
    , 150 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). At a suppression hearing, the
    trial court is the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the
    weight to be given their testimony, and a trial court may choose to believe or to
    disbelieve all or any part of a witness’s testimony. 
    Valtierra, 310 S.W.3d at 447
    ;
    Wiede v. State, 
    214 S.W.3d 17
    , 24-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (quoting State v.
    Ballard, 
    987 S.W.2d 889
    , 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)); State v. Ross, 
    32 S.W.3d 853
    , 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
    In reviewing a trial court’s ruling, the appellate court does not engage in its
    own factual review. St. George v. State, 
    237 S.W.3d 720
    , 725 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2007). We give almost total deference to the trial court’s determination of historical
    facts, “especially if those are based on an assessment of credibility and demeanor.”
    Crain v. State, 
    315 S.W.3d 43
    , 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). We give the same
    deference to the trial court’s conclusions with respect to mixed questions of law and
    fact that turn on credibility or demeanor. State v. Ortiz, 
    382 S.W.3d 367
    , 372 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2012). We review purely legal questions de novo as well as mixed
    questions of law and fact that do not turn on credibility and demeanor. State v.
    Woodard, 
    341 S.W.3d 404
    , 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); 
    Crain, 315 S.W.3d at 48
    .
    6
    We also review de novo “whether the totality of [the] circumstances is sufficient to
    support an officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” 
    Crain, 315 S.W.3d at 48
    -49.
    In the absence of any findings of fact, either because none were requested or
    none were spontaneously made by the trial court, an appellate court must presume
    that the trial court implicitly resolved all issues of historical fact and witness
    credibility in the light most favorable to its ultimate ruling. State v. Elias, 
    339 S.W.3d 667
    , 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing 
    Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856
    ); see also Aguirre
    v. State, 
    402 S.W.3d 664
    , 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Cochran, J., concurring) (“in
    the absence of specific findings, an appellate court’s hands are tied, giving it little
    choice but to ‘view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling
    and assume that the trial court made implicit findings of fact that support its ruling
    as long as those findings are supported by the record[]’”) (quoting 
    Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 855
    ). We afford the prevailing party the strongest legitimate view of the evidence
    and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. State v. Duran,
    
    396 S.W.3d 563
    , 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We will uphold the trial court’s ruling
    if it is reasonably supported by the record and is correct under any theory of law
    applicable to the case. State v. Story, 
    445 S.W.3d 729
    , 732 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014);
    7
    Arguellez v. State, 
    409 S.W.3d 657
    , 662-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); 
    Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 855
    .
    Applicable Law
    Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless search is per se
    unreasonable unless it falls within an exception to the requirement for a warrant.
    Arizona v. Gant, 
    556 U.S. 332
    , 338 (2009); McGee v. State, 
    105 S.W.3d 609
    , 615
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The “automobile exception” allows for the warrantless
    search of a vehicle “if it is readily mobile and there is probable cause to believe that
    it contains contraband.” See Marcopoulos v. State, 
    538 S.W.3d 596
    , 599 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2017); Keehn v. State, 
    279 S.W.3d 330
    , 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also
    United States v. Ross, 
    456 U.S. 798
    , 825 (1982) (police may search a vehicle if they
    have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime). The Officer testified
    that he observed Smith’s motorcycle in motion, and the State offered video evidence
    of the motorcycle in motion. See California v. Carney, 
    471 U.S. 386
    , 391-92 (1985)
    (explaining that the “automobile exception” to the requirement of a warrant applies
    when a vehicle is being used on the highways). The Appellant does not challenge
    the fact that his vehicle was “readily mobile.” Rather, he contends that the trial court
    erred because the search was based on the detaining officer’s “inarticulate hunches”
    8
    that narcotics were being concealed on the motorcycle and, therefore, the officer
    lacked probable cause to search the motorcycle.
    Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the
    knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy
    information would warrant a reasonable and prudent man in believing that a
    particular person has committed or is committing a crime.” Brown v. State, 
    481 S.W.2d 106
    , 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); see also Amores v. State, 
    816 S.W.2d 407
    ,
    413 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). “Probable cause requires an evaluation of probabilities,
    and probabilities ‘are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on
    which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’” 
    Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 24
    (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 
    338 U.S. 160
    , 175 (1949)). If the totality
    of the circumstances demonstrate a “fair probability” of finding evidence at the
    location being searched, then the probable cause standard is met. Dixon v. State, 
    206 S.W.3d 613
    , 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A court may consider “the training,
    knowledge, and experience of law enforcement officials” involved in the warrantless
    search. See 
    Wiede, 214 S.W.3d at 25
    . Only a “minimal level of objective
    justification” on the part of the officer is required, and our “determination of
    reasonable suspicion must be based upon commonsense judgments and inferences
    about human behavior.” See Illinois v. Wardlow, 
    528 U.S. 119
    , 125 (2000); United
    9
    States v. Sokolow, 
    490 U.S. 1
    , 7 (1989) (quoting Immigration & Naturalization Serv.
    v. Dalgado, 
    466 U.S. 210
    , 217 (1984)).
    Analysis
    In this case, the Officer testified that he made the initial stop based on his
    visual observation that the motorcycle lacked legible tags and that he also visually
    determined that the motorcycle had seriously worn tires. Once he stopped Smith, the
    Officer testified that he observed that the motorcycle’s VIN numbers had been
    ground down, and that he suspected the vehicle might be stolen. Furthermore, the
    Officer explained that he personally knew Smith to have a history of involvement
    with methamphetamines, and that Smith was very nervous, sweating profusely, and
    in an excited state. The Officer testified that he observed something stuffed into the
    air intake of the motorcycle, that the seat of the motorcycle and fuel tank were not
    bolted down, and that based on his knowledge of motorcycles, he knew that nothing
    should be stuffed into the intake area. He also testified that he had been working an
    open investigation with Triangle Motors for distribution of illegal narcotics and that
    the temporary plate on the motorcycle indicated the motorcycle came from Triangle
    Motors.
    In Marcopoulous, the Court determined that a suspect’s furtive gestures,
    including his visits to a bar known for involvement with narcotics sales, were
    10
    insufficient to establish probable cause to search the suspect’s vehicle under the
    “automobile exception.” 
    See 538 S.W.3d at 603-04
    . The Court explained that an
    officer’s observations about the suspect may have provided reasonable suspicion to
    justify a temporary investigative detention, but that additional “indicators of drug
    activity” were necessary to tip the scale in favor of finding probable cause to search
    the vehicle. 
    Id. at 604.
    By contrast, the record in this case includes evidence of
    numerous additional facts that provided additional indicators of drug activity beyond
    the arresting officer’s initial basis for stopping Smith. Among other things, the
    Officer was very familiar with motorcycles, including the particular model Smith
    was driving, and the Officer had observed several indicators from the motorcycle
    and the suspect. For example, the Officer noticed something unusual stuffed into the
    air intake of the motorcycle. The Officer also observed that the motorcycle showed
    that it was registered to Triangle Motors, an entity the Officer personally knew to be
    associated with an open narcotics sales investigation, the Officer had specific
    knowledge that the suspect had previously been linked to narcotics, the suspect was
    nervous and sweating, and failed to give direct answers to certain questions, and the
    motorcycle’s seat and gas tank appeared to be inadequately secured indicating to the
    Officer that contraband could be hidden in the motorcycle. Such “additional
    11
    indicators” of drug activity factually distinguish this case from Marcopoulous and
    would tip the scale in favor of finding probable cause. See 
    id. Considering the
    totality of the circumstances, the trial court could have
    reasonably concluded that the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the
    Officer and of which the Officer had reasonably trustworthy information would
    warrant a reasonable and prudent man in believing that Smith had committed or was
    committing a crime or that the motorcycle contained contraband. See 
    Keehn, 279 S.W.3d at 335
    ; 
    Brown, 481 S.W.2d at 110
    . The trial court could have reasonably
    concluded based upon the record that the Officer’s warrantless search of the
    motorcycle was justified under the “automobile exception.” See 
    Ross, 456 U.S. at 825
    ; 
    Story, 445 S.W.3d at 732
    . Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
    trial court’s ruling, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the
    State met its burden to demonstrate at least a minimal level of objective justification
    to justify the search of Smith’s motorcycle. See 
    Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7
    ; 
    Keehn, 279 S.W.3d at 336
    . Accordingly, we overrule the Appellant’s issue and affirm the trial
    court’s order.
    AFFIRMED.
    _________________________
    LEANNE JOHNSON
    Justice
    12
    Submitted on March 30, 2018
    Opinion Delivered June 13, 2018
    Do Not Publish
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
    13