Tremayne Alexander Johnson v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 09-15-00456-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 17, 2017; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tremayne Alexander Johnson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to multiple charges: possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture/deliver, manufacturing or possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court assessed a concurrent thirty-year sentence on each count. In his motion to suppress, Johnson argued that his stop and detention were conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, violating several amendments of the U.S. Constitution and corresponding sections of the Texas Constitution.

During the suppression hearing, evidence was presented including a dispatch recording from the Conroe Police Department, which captured an emergency call related to a disturbance at Johnson's location. Officer Gordon Westbrook testified that he was dispatched to a high-crime area and, upon arrival, was flagged down by Chikita Johnson, who identified Johnson as the source of the disturbance. Following this identification, Officer Westbrook stopped a black Nissan Versa that was leaving the scene. The trial court ultimately upheld the denial of Johnson's motion to suppress, confirming the legality of the stop based on the circumstances described.

Westbrook inquired about a disturbance involving a vehicle, to which the passenger, identified as Johnson, claimed it was merely an argument. Noticing Johnson's sweaty appearance, Westbrook asked if the argument was physical or verbal, and Johnson responded he was simply hot. Westbrook observed Johnson's right hand tucked under his leg and requested to see his hands, leading Johnson to reveal packages of synthetic marijuana and cigarillos. When Johnson dropped these, a cellophane bag fell as well, which Johnson admitted contained "Serenity," identified as synthetic marijuana by Westbrook.

After handcuffing Johnson and reading him his Miranda rights, Westbrook searched the vehicle, discovering more synthetic marijuana, cellophane bags, brightly colored pills, and a pill bottle containing crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and ecstasy or MDMA. The pill bottle was located in the center floorboard, the same area where Johnson had dropped other items. Westbrook detained the female occupant for a thorough search.

Video evidence from Westbrook’s dash camera was presented at a hearing. Officer Jeremy Moore arrived after Johnson's arrest and noted Johnson had claimed ownership of a safe in the vehicle, which he had the key for. A narcotics dog alerted to the safe, and upon opening it, Moore found scales and drug residue.

The trial court denied Johnson's motion to suppress evidence, highlighting the numerous 911 calls reporting the incident, indicating a chaotic situation that warranted police investigation. The court deemed the traffic stop an appropriate investigative measure, justified by Johnson dropping drugs in plain view during his detention. The court concluded that the officers were justified in their actions, including accessing the safe.

An alert from a drug detection dog, combined with the presence of a key on the Defendant and his admission that it was his safe, justified the search of the locked safe despite the absence of consent. The court denied the Defense’s request to suppress evidence based on these findings. On appeal, Johnson contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to suppress, arguing that Officer Westbrook lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, rendering the obtained evidence inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution. The appellate review process involves a bifurcated standard: factual findings are assessed for abuse of discretion, while the application of law to those facts is reviewed de novo. The trial court serves as the sole trier of fact, and its credibility determinations are afforded significant deference. Johnson's appeal specifically challenges the reasonable suspicion standard, asserting that the initial stop was unjustified. Warrantless stops are permissible if reasonable suspicion is established based on specific and articulable facts that warrant police intrusion.

In Ford v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals established that law enforcement's justification for an investigative stop must meet an objective standard, requiring more than mere suspicion or hunches. Reasonable suspicion is assessed based on the totality of circumstances, considering the facts known to law enforcement at the time. Reliable information from a citizen-informant, who can be held accountable for their accuracy, is deemed credible and can support reasonable suspicion. In this case, Officer Westbrook corroborated a 911 disturbance call with a face-to-face encounter with a complainant who confirmed the report. The cumulative information, including the source of the call and the officer's observations, provided sufficient grounds for Westbrook to reasonably suspect that criminal activity was occurring, justifying the stop of Johnson. The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was affirmed, concluding that the officer's actions were objectively reasonable based on specific articulable facts.