See State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.1991) ($11,014 was seized from the claimant after a 19–year veteran of the Houston Police Department, who had received special training in the use of drug-courier profiles that aided him in identifying potential smugglers, observed the claimant deplaning from a flight from New York City to Houston, a route frequented by those transporting drugs); $217,590.00 in United States Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 926 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (evidence supporting nexus between the currency discovered in Olvera's tractor and drug activity included testimony of DPS investigators who said that that the facts involved in Olvera's stop were consistent with the methods of transporting profits derived from narcotics sales to Mexico); Antrim v. State, 868 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, no pet.) (nexus evidence included fact that driver was stopped traveling southbound on a highway that was a major drug-smuggling route during his second 48–hour round trip from Michigan to Texas in less than 30 days); Jones v. State ex rel. Mississippi Dept. of Public Safety, 607 So.2d 23 (Miss.1991) (nexus supported by fact that defendant was stopped on his way back from Miami, a known drug trafficking city).
$217,590.00 In U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Texas Department of Public Safety troopers stopped Appellant Mikel Wayne Lambeth, Jr. The entire stop was recorded on a videotape that was introduced into evidence at the suppression hearing and is part of our record.
(applying totality of circumstances test for reasonableness of temporary detention and requiring detaining officer to have specific articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts, leading him to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity). See also $217,590.00 in United States Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) ("A stop based on a violation of a traffic regulation will not justify detention to await the arrival of a drug detection dog . . . [which] is necessarily a greater imposition on a motorist than conducting a search immediately upon the arousal of a reasonable suspicion."). A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction under article 38.23(a) when a fact issue exists regarding the basis for an officer's seizure of evidence.
$217,590.00 In U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Texas Department of Public Safety troopers stopped Appellant Mikel Wayne Lambeth, Jr. for speeding.
The reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances and will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead to the conclusion that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); 217,590 in U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). An officer who has a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains narcotics may temporarily detain it to allow an olfactory inspection by a trained drug-detection dog. Estrada v. State, 30 S.W.3d 599, 603 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, no pet.).
The reasonableness of a temporary detention must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances and will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead him to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); 217,590 in United States Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains narcotics, he may temporarily detain it to allow an olfactory inspection by a trained drug detection dog.
" Other courts have also rejected Dr. Dan Craig's dictum that "[t]he odor is there if the drug is there. The drug is there if the odor is there." See $217,590.00 in United States Currency v. Texas, 54 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Tex.Ct.App. 2001). In that case, the court noted that the drug dog "Nemo" alerted on "numerous occasions" when no drugs were found. There, it was explained that "because narcotics can leave a residue which is detectable by a dog's sense of smell, the alerts were not necessarily erroneous."
The reasonableness of a temporary detention after the tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed must be examined in terms of the totality of the circumstances and will be justified when the detaining officer has specific articulable facts, which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, lead to the conclusion that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. See Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); $217,590 in U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). B. Discussion
This tip was corroborated by Officer Nieto's observations that Rodriguez, the recipient of the transfer, was nervous, abandoned his vehicle, and evaded attention, and the alert by Officer Schaelchlin's narcotics dog. See Green v. State, 256 S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.) (holding that "extreme nervousness" can be a factor in establishing probable cause); $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) ("it is well-settled that a trained narcotics dog's positive alert for drugs is sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest."). Rodriguez places great weight on the fact that neither Special Agent Moya nor Officer Nieto actually "witnessed" the transfer between the red pickup truck to the silver Monte Carlo that Rodriguez drove, and he argues that this should factor against a finding of probable cause.
They also had probable cause to arrest Branch without a warrant. See $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency v. State, 54 S.W.3d 918, 923 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) ("It is well-settled that a trained narcotics dog's positive alert for drugs is sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest."); De Jesus v. State, 917 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref'd); Bunts v. State, 881 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, pet. ref'd). Given that the officers had probable cause to arrest Branch, they also were permitted to conduct a search of Branch incident to that arrest.