No. 04-04-00591-CR
Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas, Trial Court No. 3923, Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
Tasha Nicole Jones appeals the trial court's judgment revoking her probation. Jones presents two issues on appeal contending that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress and admitting evidence that should have been suppressed as a result of her illegal detention. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
On March 18, 2004, Detective Jeremy D. Brosh was conducting a pro-active narcotics investigation. Detective Brosh explained that the investigation involved setting up surveillance in high crime areas where narcotics distribution is known to be occurring. Detective Brosh set up surveillance to observe activity in a fast food parking lot and an adjacent service station parking lot. Detective Brosh explained, "almost every time we have been out there, we have had a narcotics arrest out there." Detective Brosh was parked in the fast food parking lot when he noticed a white Buick with two females also parked in the parking lot. The females were talking and looking around as if waiting for someone to arrive. Jones was in the passenger seat. A white Toyota pulled up on the driver's side of the Buick. Two males were in the front seat of the Toyota, and one male was in the back seat. The male who was sitting in the back seat exited the Toyota and got into the back seat of the Buick. The male briefly spoke with the two females and then reached over into the front seat with his hand. When he drew his hand back, he appeared to have money in his hand. The male put his hands down into his lap, appeared to be going through something, and then reached back over and appeared to drop something in the front. The male exited the Buick and jumped back into the Toyota. The Toyota and the Buick then left the parking lot and headed in different directions. The entire episode lasted less than a minute. Detective Brosh relayed his observations to Officer Lopez and requested that Officer Lopez stop the vehicle and further investigate. Detective Brosh stated that he was on his personal phone relaying the details to Officer Lopez and then radioed for Officer Lopez to stop the vehicle. Officer Robert J. Lopez testified that Detective Brosh relayed to him the details of the narcotics transaction Detective Brosh had observed involving the females in the Buick. Officer Lopez stopped the Buick because of the information provided by Detective Brosh and because the vehicle failed to make a left-hand signal while entering the highway. Officer Lopez informed the driver of his purpose. After confirming that he had stopped the vehicle Detective Brosh had observed, undercover officers appeared, and the vehicle was searched. Upon lifting the two purses located between the seats, Officer Lopez recovered a medicine vial that appeared to contain rock or crack cocaine. The driver of the vehicle told Officer Lopez that the vial belonged to her. Detective Brosh arrived on the scene after Jones had been arrested. Detective Brosh searched Jones's purse and discovered a very small rolled-up ball of copper-colored Brillo which Detective Brosh stated was commonly used to "filter out when smoking crack cocaine." Officer Leslie Lavine was called to search the persons of both females. While searching Jones, Officer Lavine felt a round cylindrical container in between Jones's legs that appeared to be coming out of Jones's body. Officer Lavine removed Jones's handcuffs and placed her in the back of her patrol car. Jones removed the object, which was a round pharmacy pill container that contained a rocklike item. The rocklike item was determined to be cocaine. Jones pled not true to the allegation that she violated the terms and conditions of her probation by committing the offense of possession of a controlled substance. Jones filed a pretrial motion to suppress that was heard at the same time as the bench trial on the probation violation. The trial court found that Jones had violated the terms of her probation by committing the offense of possession of a controlled substance, thereby implicitly overruling or denying the motion to suppress. The trial court also signed a written order denying the motion to suppress. Standard of Review
We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Applying a bifurcated standard of review, we afford almost total deference to the trial court's determination of historical facts, but review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts when it does not turn on credibility and demeanor. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 652-53 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Discussion
The test for determining the existence of probable cause for a warrantless arrest is whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had sufficient trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing the arrested person had committed or was committing an offense. Taylor v. State, 82 S.W.3d 134, 138 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.). Probable cause deals with probabilities; it requires more than mere suspicion but far less evidence than that needed to support a conviction or even that needed to support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. To determine whether probable cause exists, we must look to the totality of the circumstances. Id. When there has been some cooperation between law enforcement agencies or between members of the same agency, the sum of the information known to the cooperating agencies or officers at the time of an arrest is to be considered in determining whether there was sufficient probable cause. Id. Once an officer has probable cause to arrest, he may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle as a search incident to an arrest. State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). In this case, Detective Brosh testified that the area under surveillance had resulted in narcotics arrests almost every time surveillance was undertaken. Detective Brosh detailed his observations regarding the narcotics transaction involving Jones. Although Detective Brosh could not "testify as to overt observation of a substance or . . . money," Detective Brosh was firm in his testimony that based on his experience, a narcotics transaction had occurred. Lunde v. State, 736 S.W.2d 665, 667-68 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) (relying on officers' professional opinion where substance, packaging and money not overly observed); see also Alvarez v. State, No. 04-02-00899-CR, 2004 WL 1391870, at *3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio June 23, 2004, no pet.) (same) (not designated for publication). Given the location and Detective Brosh's observations, the sum of the information known to Officer Lopez was sufficient to establish probable cause that an offense had been committed. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones's motion to suppress. Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.