Darrin Keith Brown v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 18, 2004
• Docket: 01-03-00067-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 18, 2004

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-03-00067-CR

---

DARRIN KEITH BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 897761

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          A jury found appellant Darrin Keith Brown guilty of possession of between four and 20 grams cocaine, and assessed punishment at 33 years’ confinement. We affirm.

Facts

          On December 27, 2001, Sergeant Richard Klotz and Officer Stanley Shuman drove to the Taft Motel, a location known for narcotics transactions. Sergeant Klotz observed a woman standing by the driver’s side of a car talking to Brown, who was seated inside the car. Based on his specialized narcotics investigations training and his 33 years of police experience, Officer Klotz formed the opinion that a drug or prostitution transaction was taking place. He approached the car, and the woman moved away.

          Officer Klotz then observed Brown holding a yellow-orange prescription bottle in his hand. He recognized it as a type commonly used in the drug trade to store and conceal cocaine. Upon seeing Klotz, Brown dove over the back seat of the car to the floorboard. Fearing that Brown might be reaching for a gun, Officer Klotz drew his weapon and ordered Brown to exit the car. Brown complied, but then turned and fled on foot. Other officers on the scene apprehended Brown.

          Officer Shuman retrieved the prescription bottle from the floorboard of the backseat. He also seized a plastic twist bag containing cocaine.

Motion to Suppress

          In his sole issue, Brown contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine because the police retrieved it pursuant to an unlawful search of a vehicle.

          An exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches is a search incident to a lawful arrest. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (1981). By fleeing the scene and evading detention, Brown committed a criminal offense in Klotz’s presence. See Simpson v. State, 668 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no pet.). Officer Shuman’s contemporaneous search of the vehicle was incident to a lawful custodial arrest and thus constituted a proper search. The police may search a vehicle and containers within it when the search is incident to a lawful arrest. See Belton, 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S. Ct. at 2864; Carver v. State, 746 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d). The trial court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress.

          Brown relies on Smith v. State, 759 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref’d) to support his contention that the search was invalid. In Smith, however, the court held that an inventory search of a vehicle in connection with its impoundment was improper as it took place after an unlawful detention and search. Id. at 167. Here, the police searched the vehicle in connection with a lawful arrest. Brown’s reliance upon Smith is therefore misplaced.

Conclusion

          The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress, and we therefore affirm the judgment.

                                                             Jane Bland

                                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Bland.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).