No.

THE STATE OF TEXAS			§           IN THE _______ COURT
												§

V.						§	OF
						§

JOHN DOE					§	LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 
	DEFENDANT, JOHN DOE, submits the following in support of the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was respectfully submitted to this Court on ____ day of _______________, 2004.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	The Defendant allegedly committed the offense which is subject of Cause No.__________ on September 9, 2004.  At this time, Defendant was given a citation for Open Container and Minor in Possession.
FACTS
	According to the arresting officer’s report, on September 9, 2004, Officer Pena stopped the vehicle in which Defendant was riding as a passenger as it was pulling into the parking lot of a Seven Eleven convenient store.  The report states that the reason for the stop was that the vehicle matched a description given by an unnamed party reporting a vehicle burglary.  The officer reportedly detained the vehicle’s occupants, including the Defendant upon making contact.  When the officer had the Defendant step out of the vehicle, some cans of beer allegedly fell out as the Defendant opened the door.

ARGUMENT

I.	The detention of the vehicle in which the Defendant was riding was improper because the stop was not based on a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle’s occupants were or had been involved in criminal activity.

	“An officer may temporarily stop and investigate a vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the detainee is connected to unusual activity with some indication that the activity is related to a crime.”  Stone v. State, 703 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (overruled on other grounds).  The United States Supreme Court held in Alabama v. White, that reasonable suspicion is dependant on both the quality of the information at hand, and its degree of reliability.  496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990).  The Court also held that, “while an anonymous tip or telephone call may, and usually will, justify the initiation of an investigation, it alone will rarely establish the level of suspicion required to justify a detention.”  Id. at 329.  “There must be some further indicia of reliability, some additional facts from which a police officer may reasonably conclude that the tip is reliable and a detention is justified.”  State v. Sailo, 910 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref’d).
	The Amarillo Court of Appeals summarized this idea into three factors significant to the determination of whether a tip provides reasonable suspicion for a temporary detention.  Glenn v. State, 967 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. granted).  The first is the tipster’s ability to accurately predict future behavior of third parties.  Id.  The second is police corroboration of details linking the accused to the stated criminal activity.  Id.  The third and final factor given by the court was “a particularized and objective reason to suspect the accused.”  Id.
	In State v. Stolte, a citizen called police on his cell phone to report a suspected DWI.  991 S.W.2d 336, 339 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 1999, no pet.).  The caller gave the police a description of the vehicle, the vehicle’s location, and the vehicle’s license plate number.  Id.  When the responding officer arrived at the described location, he saw the vehicle, turned on his emergency lights and stopped the appellant.  Id.  The informant stayed on the phone with the dispatcher throughout the time the officer was responding, constantly updating the officer as to the vehicle’s location.  Id. at 340.  When the officer pulled the vehicle over, the informant circled the block and pulled in behind the police car.  Id.
	The court reasoned that in light of the totality of circumstances known to the officer at the time of the detention, he was justified in initiating the traffic stop immediately upon verifying the vehicle’s location and description.  Id. at 343.  The circumstances discussed by the court were that the officer knew the caller was still on the phone with the dispatcher, that the department’s policy was to have the caller pull in behind the officer after the suspect was stopped, and that the officer verified the vehicle’s description, location, and license plate number.  Id. at 342.  The fact that the caller was readily available to give information directly to the officer increased the reliability of the tip, thereby decreasing the amount of police corroboration needed to justify the stop.  Id.  The court reasoned that the totality of those circumstances, combined with the obvious danger that the appellant presented to the public, justified the officer’s stop of the appellant.  Id. at 343.
	Unlike in Stolte, the officer’s report in the present case gives no indication that the arresting officer had any other information about the alleged suspects reported by the unnamed caller other than a vehicle description.  There are no independent facts in the report to suggest that the unnamed caller’s tip was reliable or that the detention of the vehicle was justified.  A black Chevrolet Tahoe is arguably not an uncommon vehicle.  Further, there is nothing in the report indicating that the officer observed any activity from the occupants of the vehicle that would lead him to believe that the occupants were or had been involved in criminal activity.  It appears from the report that the only reason for the stop of the vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger was that it reportedly fit a description given by an unnamed caller.
	Given the lack of any independent facts to corroborate the reliability of the caller’s report, and the lack of any other facts that would have given the officer reason to believe that the Defendant or any of the other occupants of the vehicle were or had been involved in criminal activity, the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion which would allow him to stop and detain the vehicle and its occupants.  Therefore, pursuant to Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, any evidence obtained as a result of the detention of the vehicle and it’s occupants should be suppressed as the product of an illegal search.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

	The evidence obtained from the detention of the vehicle and Defendant should be suppressed under Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure as the product of an illegal search.  There is no evidence to corroborate the reliability of the unnamed caller’s report and there is nothing in the evidence that would have given the arresting officer a reasonable suspicion allowing him to detain the Defendant or any of the other occupants of the vehicle.  For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully asks this court to find that the detention of the Defendant was illegal and suppress all evidence gained as a result of that illegality.
Respectfully submitted,

By:________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
	
	This is to certify that on the _____day of _______ 2004, a copy of Defendant’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress was delivered to the Criminal District Attorney of _________County, Texas.

___________________________________________