Opinion
No. 10-02-00211-CR.
Opinion delivered and filed May 5, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the County Court, Navarro County, Texas, Trial Court # 50229. Affirmed.
Douglas L. Wilder, Milner Finn, Dallas, TX, for appellant/relator. Steve A. Keathley, Navarro County Criminal District Attorney, and David P. Lamb, Navarro County Asst. District Attorney, Corsicana, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
This case was submitted with former Chief Justice Davis on the panel, but he resigned effective August 4, 2003. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(c). Justice Reyna, who took the oath of office on January 5, 2004, participated in the decision of the court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Russell Ray Hammaker was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. After the court denied his motion to suppress, Hammaker pled no contest to the charge. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for two years. On appeal, Hammaker contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We affirm. Hammaker was stopped at night for speeding, 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, by Department of Public Safety Trooper John Nelson. After a search of Hammaker's vehicle, Nelson found a small amount of marijuana. Hammaker does not take issue with the initial stop made by Nelson. Instead, he argues that his continued detention was unreasonable. Any continued detention must be based on reasonable suspicion. See Simpson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 324, 327 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). The totality of the circumstances, in other words, the whole picture, must be taken into account. See Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 328 (Tex.Crim. App. 2000). Nelson testified that in the past five years, he worked five to six hundred drug cases. The following occurrences made Nelson suspicious that drugs were in the vehicle:
1. the passenger was very nervous and complained about her urgent need to go to the bathroom, although they had just passed a rest area and six stores in Angus, Texas;
2. the passenger had an extensive criminal history which included some prior drug arrests;
3. when questioned, the passenger talked amply about her criminal history except the drug arrests;
4. when questioned, Hammaker stated that he took drugs in college.Hammaker then consented to a search of the vehicle. There is no evidence in the record that his consent was involuntarily given. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Hammaker's continued detention was not unreasonable. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and Hammaker's sole issue is overruled. We affirm the trial court's judgment.