Law School Case Brief
Fisher v. State - 481 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App. 2015)
In the course of a routine traffic stop, the detaining officer may request a driver's license, car registration, and insurance; use that information to conduct a computer check for outstanding arrest warrants; question the vehicle's occupants regarding their travel plans; and issue a citation. If, during that investigation, an officer develops reasonable suspicion that another violation has occurred, the scope of the initial investigation expands to include the new offense. Reasonable suspicion must be founded on specific, articulable facts which, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead the officer to conclude that a particular person actually is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Yet, the officer does not need to develop reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has been or is about to be committed; rather, the facts need only suggest that something illegal was afoot. If such facts exist, the police are entitled, as long as they act with reasonable diligence, to pursue several plausible theories in attempting to resolve the suspicion that reasonably had been created. Whether the totality of the circumstances is sufficient to support an officer's reasonable suspicion is a legal question that an appellate court reviews de novo.
Defendant Dale Dewayne Fisher was stopped by an Upshur County Deputy Sheriff for a defective license plate bulb. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, the deputy discovered a gun, suspected counterfeit currency, and suspected methamphetamine. Fisher was arrested and charged with possession of more than four grams but less than 200 grams of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. At trial in Texas state court, Fisher filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the traffic stop, arguing that the stop was improperly prolonged beyond its purpose. The trial court denied his motion. After a jury trial, Fisher was found guilty as charged, was sentenced to 75 years' imprisonment, and was fined $10,000. On appeal, Fisher argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
Did the trial court err by denying Fisher's motion to suppress?
The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress and affirmed the Fisher's conviction. It held that the officer's traffic stop for a defective license plate bulb was properly extended after the officer completed a warrants and registration check and returned to the vehicle and asked Fisher to step out, allowing the officer to smell burnt marijuana on Fisher and observe him sweating profusely despite winter temperatures. The court observed that the officer's continued questioning of the occupants after he had completed the warrants and registration check was related to the original purpose for the traffic stop, because it served the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road were operated safely and responsibly. Lastly, in light of the officer's knowledge of Fisher's prior drug-related criminal history, he had reasonable suspicion that something illegal was afoot and his subsequent calling of a drug dog was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class