Nestor Nunez v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-09-00047-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 8, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nestor Nuñez appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the traffic stop leading to the evidence against him was based on insufficient reasonable suspicion. Detective Sergio Lopez had been surveilling a residence suspected of narcotics activity when he observed Nuñez arrive and leave shortly thereafter. After checking the license plate of Nuñez's vehicle, which was reported as having expired registration, Officers Mata and Chavez initiated a traffic stop. During the stop, despite Nuñez stating he had been working out-of-town, Officer Mata expressed skepticism about his explanation. Nuñez consented to a vehicle search, which initially yielded no evidence. A K-9 officer later arrived and, after conducting a search, found several bags of narcotics in Nuñez's vehicle.

Nuñez filed multiple motions to suppress evidence, arguing the traffic stop was based on erroneous information regarding his vehicle's registration, which had actually been valid and renewed shortly before the stop. The trial court acknowledged that while the officers may have received an incorrect report about the registration, they also checked the actual registration sticker on the vehicle, which validated the stop's reason. Ultimately, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, and a jury convicted Nuñez of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, which was suspended in favor of ten years of community supervision.

Appellant argues that the court incorrectly denied his motion to suppress evidence, asserting that the stop of his vehicle violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments due to a lack of reasonable suspicion. He claims that insufficient evidence was presented to justify the stop and the subsequent search of his vehicle. The review process for a motion to suppress involves a bifurcated standard, wherein mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo, while purely factual questions that depend on witness credibility are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court's findings regarding historical facts and witness credibility are afforded significant deference. In this case, Appellant contests the stop based on a narcotics investigation, asserting that ten visits to a suspected residence and items retrieved from the trash do not establish reasonable suspicion regarding his brief visit. 

For a lawful stop without a warrant, the State must demonstrate the reasonableness of the stop. An officer can detain an individual for investigative purposes if there is reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts suggesting potential criminal activity, as established in Terry v. Ohio. The determination of reasonable suspicion relies on the totality of circumstances and specific articulable facts informed by the officer's experience. Importantly, no specific statute violation is required to establish reasonable suspicion. However, in Texas, a traffic violation (such as operating an unregistered vehicle) observed by an officer permits a lawful stop without additional probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

A peace officer in Texas can arrest an individual without a warrant for traffic law violations observed in their presence, establishing probable cause for arrest (Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 14.01(b)). Alongside the arrest, the officer is authorized to search the driver and the vehicle's interior. The State argues that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the Appellant based solely on the vehicle's registration. During a routine traffic stop, officers are entitled to request the driver's license and conduct a computer check for valid identification and any outstanding warrants. This investigation is not considered complete until these checks confirm the driver’s valid license status and that the vehicle is not stolen.

The State references Kothe v. State, asserting that a traffic stop investigation remains ongoing until the officer verifies the driver’s credentials, even if the initial reason for the stop is resolved (Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63-4). The officers’ authority during the stop includes requesting identification and proof of insurance. The investigation must conclude with the officer possessing all necessary information to permit the driver to leave. In Kothe, after initially suspecting intoxication, the officer continued the detention to complete a warrant check even after determining the driver was sober. The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled this was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing that the officer was not extending the detention for ulterior motives but fulfilling standard procedure.

The absence of findings of fact from the trial court leads to the evidence being interpreted favorably towards the court's ruling, allowing for the upholding of the ruling under any applicable legal theory. The officers lawfully stopped Appellant's vehicle based on information regarding its expired registration. During the traffic stop, they were entitled to request Appellant's driver's license and proof of insurance and to check for outstanding warrants. Even if it was later found that the registration was valid, the continued detention while waiting for the warrant check was deemed reasonable. Appellant consented to a vehicle search before the warrant check was completed, which is presumed valid and constitutes an exception to the requirement of a warrant or probable cause. Consequently, the officers did not violate Appellant's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress is upheld, and the court affirms the trial court's judgment.