Donald Rayshon Collier v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00251-CR
__________________
DONALD RAYSHON COLLIER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 17-26695
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Donald Rayshon Collier 1 appeals his conviction for possessing cocaine. 2 In
three issues, Collier challenges the trial court’s rulings denying his motion to
suppress. According to Collier, a state trooper violated his Fourth Amendment rights
1The record shows that Donald Rayshon Collier is also known as Donald
Rashawn Collier.
2 See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c).
1
by (1) stopping a car he was a passenger in, (2) unduly prolonging the stop, and (3)
arresting him for warrants that were no longer active. We hold Collier’s issues lack
merit and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
In 2017, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Collier with possessing
between one and four grams of cocaine. The indictment was based on drugs a state
trooper found incident to Collier’s arrest during a traffic stop. About two months
before the trial, Collier moved to suppress the evidence obtained incident to his arrest
because the trooper who stopped the car allegedly violated Collier’s rights under the
Fourth Amendment, article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, and article 38.23
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3
The State opposed the motion. At a hearing, the State argued that Trooper
Dane Sted, the state trooper who conducted the stop, obtained the evidence in a legal
manner and, that even if he did not, the law did not require the trial court to suppress
the evidence. To support its arguments, the State presented testimony from Trooper
Sted, as well as dash-cam video from the stop.
3 U.S. CONST. amend. IV; Tex. Const. art. I, § 9; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 38.23.
2
The evidence shows Trooper Sted arrested Collier about thirty-one minutes
into the stop shortly after learning that Collier had warrants out for his arrest.
According to the trooper, in October 2016, he saw a car make unsafe lane changes
without signaling the changes the car made between two lanes. 4 The trooper
explained he stopped the car for the traffic violations and saw two individuals in the
car—the driver and Collier. 5 According to the trooper, the driver handed him a
driver’s license, proof of insurance, and registration.
Trooper Sted stated the driver seemed extremely nervous during the stop. The
driver volunteered that he had recently been pulled over and his car searched. The
trooper asked the driver whether he needed to know about anything in the car. The
driver replied he was not carrying anything illegal and without being asked, told the
trooper he could search the car. Trooper Sted testified the fact the driver volunteered
to allow the search before he asked for permission struck him as “very unusual.” The
trooper also testified the driver voluntarily told him that the paneling around the CD
changer in the car was worn.
Seven minutes into the stop, Trooper Sted accepted the driver’s offer and
searched the car, a process that took around eight minutes. When searching the car,
4 See, e.g., Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 545.060, 545.104(a), 545.106.
5 No one asked the trooper to identify the driver’s name in the hearing.
3
the trooper noticed the paneling just above the car’s CD changer was loose.
According to the trooper, the condition of the car’s interior caused him to suspect
there might be contraband hidden inside. Trooper Sted explained the
circumstances—the condition of the car’s interior and the fact the driver was
extremely nervous—justified a more thorough search of the car. Trooper Sted
testified he decided to ask a dispatcher to send a canine unit to the scene because he
did not want to start removing parts of the car, damage it, or detain the car’s
occupants any longer than necessary to determine whether the car was being used to
carry contraband.
While waiting for the unit, the trooper learned both the driver and Collier had
criminal histories involving drugs. The trooper asked the dispatcher to find out if the
driver or Collier had warrants out for their arrest. Seven minutes later, the dispatcher
told the trooper Collier was wanted on misdemeanor warrants issued by the City of
Beaumont. Trooper Sted asked the dispatcher to confirm the warrants. Nine minutes
later, the dispatcher told the trooper that the warrants were valid.
Trooper Sted left his patrol car and placed Collier under arrest. Following the
arrest, Trooper Sted searched Collier and found a small bag containing cocaine in
Collier’s shoe. On cross-examination, Collier presented exhibits showing that, on
the day of Collier’s arrest, the warrants issued by the City of Beaumont had been
4
“cleared.” Trooper Sted agreed the exhibits showed the warrants were not active
when he arrested Collier. But the trooper emphasized the dispatcher told him
otherwise the day Collier’s arrest occurred.
No other witnesses testified in the hearing. At the end of the hearing, the trial
court overruled Collier’s motion to suppress. Afterwards, the trial court did not
provide the parties with any findings of fact or conclusions of law, but the record
does not show any findings were requested. After the trial court overruled the
motion, Collier pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine, reserving the right to appeal
the trial court’s ruling on his motion. Two months later, the trial court sentenced
Collier to serve a five-year sentence. 6
Standard of Review
We review rulings on motions to suppress evidence under a bifurcated
standard of review. 7 At a hearing on a motion to suppress, “the trial judge is the sole
trier of fact and judge of credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their
testimony.”8 For that reason, reviewing courts give the trial court almost complete
6 Possessing between one and four grams of cocaine is a third-degree felony.
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c). The reporter’s record of the
punishment hearing shows Collier pleaded true to one allegation that enhanced the
range available for his punishment to the punishment available for second-degree
felonies—two to twenty years in prison. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a).
7 Lerma v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 189-90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018).
8 Id. at 190.
5
deference when determining a fact turned on the credibility of a witness. That said,
we conduct a de novo review about whether those facts established the trooper had
an objectively reasonable basis to suspect a crime occurred. 9
Here, the trial court did not issue written findings. So we view the evidence in
the light that favors the trial court’s ruling and assume the trial court made the
implied findings needed to support its ruling if the court’s implied findings are
supported by the record. 10 We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if it was correct
under any theory of law. 11
Analysis
On appeal, Collier argues the trial court should have granted his motion to
suppress because Trooper Sted violated his Fourth Amendment rights by (1)
stopping the car, (2) unduly prolonging the stop, and (3) arresting him on warrants
that were no longer valid. According to Collier, because the trooper violated his
rights under the Fourth Amendment in one of these three ways, the evidence the
trooper discovered is “fruit of the poisonous tree” 12 and is evidence the trial court
should have suppressed.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1963).
6
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects persons
against unreasonable searches and seizures. 13 An arrest is “the quintessential
seizure” of a person under the Fourth Amendment. 14 “A traffic stop for a suspected
violation of law is a ‘seizure’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be
conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.”15
If the police obtain evidence by violating a suspect’s Fourth Amendment
rights, the federal exclusionary rule generally precludes the State from using the
evidence in a criminal proceeding against the party whose rights were violated.16
And the rule extends not only to evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal
seizure, but also to evidence obtained as an indirect result of an illegal seizure. That
evidence is often called the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” 17 We note, however, that
exceptions exist to the general rule just discussed; sometimes, the exception
nevertheless allows the evidence to be admitted even if a Fourth Amendment
violation occurred. 18
13 U.S. CONST. amend. IV; see Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190.
14 California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624 (1991) (cleaned up).
15 Heien v. N. Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014).
16 Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987).
17 See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 485-86; Smith v. State, 542 S.W.2d 420, 422
(Tex. Crim. App. 1976).
18 Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2061 (2016) (recognizing the “independent
source doctrine,” “the inevitable discovery doctrine,” and the “attenuation doctrine”
are exceptions to the exclusionary rule).
7
Initial Traffic Stop
First, we will address whether it was reasonable for Trooper Sted to stop the
car Collier occupied. Police officers may conduct warrantless traffic stops when the
reasonable suspicion standard is satisfied. 19 “Reasonable suspicion exists if the
officer has specific articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences
from those facts, would lead him to reasonably suspect that a particular person has
engaged or is (or soon will be) engaging in criminal activity.”20 “The test for
reasonable suspicion is an objective one that focuses solely on whether an objective
basis exists for the detention and disregards the officer’s subjective intent[,]” so it
hinges on “the totality of the circumstances” leading to the officer’s decision that
launched the stop.21
The evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding that Trooper Sted
witnessed the driver he stopped commit several traffic violations before initiating
the stop. Under Texas law, drivers may not change lanes unless the driver can change
lanes safely. 22 Texas law also requires drivers to signal their intention to change
19 Jaganathan v. State, 479 S.W.3d 244, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
20 Id. (cleaned up).
21 State v. Kerwick, 393 S.W.3d 270, 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
22 Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.060(a).
8
lanes. 23 According to Trooper Sted, he witnessed the car make two unsafe lane
changes without displaying a signal. The dash-cam video aligns with Trooper Sted’s
testimony. Even more, none of the evidence Collier introduced contradicts the trial
court’s conclusion that the trooper witnessed a traffic violation occur.
Prolonged Detention
Next, we address whether Trooper Sted unduly prolonged the stop. Generally,
the officer’s investigation into a traffic stop must reasonably relate to the purpose of
the stop, so the officer may not prolong the stop beyond the time reasonably required
to issue a ticket. 24 Law enforcement officials may request information from the
driver, including the driver’s license, the registration for the car, and proof of
insurance during routine stops.25 Officers may also check the information they get
from drivers during stops, using equipment in their cars, such as computers, and
calling dispatchers for that purpose. 26 And officers may ask drivers and passengers
about matters unrelated to the traffic violation as long as the officer’s questions do
not measurably extend the duration of the stop.27
23 Id. §§ 545.104(a), 545.106; see, e.g., Leming v. State, 493 S.W.3d 552, 559-
60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
24 Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
9
Because traffic stops can be dangerous, an officer may take certain
precautions to complete the stop safely, including conducting an on-scene
investigation into some other crime when the officer develops information during
the stop that creates a reasonable suspicion some other crime involving the
individuals the officer stopped occurred.28 In conducting that investigation, no per
se rule exists requiring the officer to first check the accuracy of driver’s license
information before the officer questions the individuals removed from a car.29 And
an officer’s decision to question both occupants before checking the accuracy of the
information the driver an any passengers gave the officer is particularly reasonable
when the officer is the only law enforcement official present since he has to control
the scene during the stop.30
If, during the stop, an officer develops reasonable suspicion that an individual
he stopped engaged in some other criminal activity, the officer may, when
reasonable, decide to extend the investigation for a reasonable time to further
investigate and to rule out (or in) whether some other criminal activity the officer
suspected in fact occurred.31 Whether the duration of the detention was reasonable
28 See Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
29 Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190-91.
30 Id. at 196-97.
31 Martinez v. State, 500 S.W.3d 456, 468 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2016, pet.
ref’d).
10
hinges on “whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was
likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly[.]”32
As mentioned, the evidence shows Trooper Sted arrested Collier about thirty-
one minutes into the stop. The trooper was alone at the beginning of the stop and no
other law enforcement officials were present to assist the trooper in controlling the
scene before the unit carrying the canine arrived. During the stop, the driver of the
car told Trooper Sted (without being asked) that the trooper could search the car and
that the car had a loose panel near the CD changer inside. On this record, the question
about whether the driver volunteered to allow the trooper to search the car was a
matter of fact, and the trial court, as the factfinder, had the right to credit the trooper’s
testimony about that fact as well as the trooper’s testimony that the driver of the car
seemed extremely nervous. Viewed objectively, the evidence shows the trooper’s
suspicions about other crime were reasonable based on specific facts that he
articulated in the hearing. Thus, the trooper did not unreasonably prolong the
detention by searching the car and calling a canine unit to the scene.
The search took less than ten minutes. During the search, Trooper Sted noticed
the paneling around the CD changer was loose and there was unusual wear on the
car’s interior. After Trooper Sted searched the car, he spent another six minutes
32 United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985).
11
questioning the driver, finding out where Collier and the passenger had been and
where they were headed. The trooper testified he thought the stories each man gave
him were so consistent they were rehearsed. According to Trooper Sted, he told the
driver he wanted to have a dog sniff the car, the driver agreed, and they waited at the
scene for about fifteen minutes for the canine unit to arrive. 33
While waiting for the canine unit, Trooper Sted called the dispatcher to check
for warrants. After a short delay, the dispatcher told Trooper Sted that Collier had
warrants out for his arrest. Trooper Sted asked the dispatcher to confirm whether the
warrants were still valid. Several minutes later, the dispatcher told the trooper the
warrants were still active.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we
conclude the stop at issue was not unduly prolonged. Instead, the evidence shows
the trooper investigated his suspicions, which were objectively reasonable, in a
manner designed to dispel them at each step of the investigation that occurred. We
conclude the trooper did not subject Collier to a detention that violated his Fourth
Amendment rights.
33 Matthews v. State, 431 S.W.3d 596, 603-04 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“One
reasonable method of confirming or dispelling the reasonable suspicion that a
vehicle contains drugs is to have a trained drug dog perform an ‘open air’ search by
walking around the car.”).
12
Arrest for Outstanding Warrants
Last, we must decide whether the trial court should have suppressed the
evidence Trooper Sted discovered when he arrested Collier because Collier’s
warrants were no longer active on the day the trooper arrested him. On appeal, we
note that Collier has not argued the arrest violated the Texas Constitution or the
Texas exclusionary rule.34 Thus, given Collier’s argument, we restrict our review to
whether Collier’s arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.35
Usually, the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to have probable
cause or a warrant before they may make an arrest.36 “When a probable-cause
determination [is] based on reasonable but mistaken assumptions, the person
subjected to a search or seizure has not necessarily been the victim of a constitutional
violation.”37 To resolve Collier’s issue, we assume (without deciding) the trooper
violated Collier’s Fourth Amendment rights by executing inactive warrants. But just
because we assume the arrest on inactive warrants violated Collier’s rights, the
federal exclusionary rule does not necessarily automatically exclude the evidence
34 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23.
35 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (i), 47.1; Frazier v. State, 115 S.W.3d 743, 746
n.5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, no pet.).
36 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 136 (2009).
37 Id. at 139.
13
that Collier had contraband on him if an exception to the rule applies under the
circumstances at issue here.
To trigger the federal exclusionary rule, “police conduct must be sufficiently
deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that
such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” 38 For example, the
rule does not require a trial court to suppress evidence when the evidence “is
discovered by officers in the course of actions that are taken in good-faith and in the
reasonable, though mistaken, belief that they are authorized.”39 So when a police
officer has objectively relied on erroneous information that an arrest warrant is active
by looking at computerized information from a database maintained by a court or a
police employee, the belief a warrant is active is reasonable. Thus, the federal
exclusionary rule does not apply to such evidence, when it is discovered incident to
an individual’s arrest.40
In Collier’s case, the evidence shows Trooper Sted reasonably relied on the
information he received from his dispatcher about the status of Collier’s warrants.
While the dispatcher was mistaken, the trial court was entitled to find that Trooper
38 Id. at 144.
39 United States v. Lopez-Valdez, 178 F.3d 282, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (cleaned
up).
40 See Herring, 555 U.S. at 136-37; Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 14-16
(1995).
14
Sted acted in good faith by relying on the information the dispatcher gave him about
the warrant. On this record, the evidence does not show the fact the information the
dispatcher had and relayed to the trooper about the warrants was inaccurate was the
result of any ordinary or recurring police (or even judicial) negligence. Thus, even
if a Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the trooper arrested Collier on
an inactive warrant, the federal exclusionary rule did not require the trial court to
suppress the contraband the trooper found on Collier while placing him under arrest.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, Collier’s three issues are overruled and the
trial court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on January 23, 2020
Opinion Delivered April 29, 2020
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
15