Davis v. State (1997)

In Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) the police stopped the appellant for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. See 947 S.W.2d at 241. This suspicion was dispelled by Davis's explanation that he was tired, not intoxicated, and by the lack of any odor or other indication of alcohol. Davis refused to consent to a search of his car. The court held that a continued detention of the vehicle for a dog sweep was unreasonable because the purpose of the investigative detention was resolved when the officers determined that Davis was not intoxicated. See Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245. Thus, a detention that is not temporary and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial interference is unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment.The court of criminal appeals, quoting the majority opinion of the lower court, noted that the stop took place late at night, and that the travelers told inconsistent stories about where they were going and appeared nervous. Additionally, the passenger had been arrested and convicted for a drug offense. Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242. Although the officers had not detected an odor of alcohol or drugs on the motorist or emanating from the vehicle, they called in a canine unit and found marijuana in the trunk. Id. at 241-42. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "while a Terry stop is traditionally considered in the context of a seizure of the person, the Supreme Court has extended Terry to personalty as well." Davis cautioned that, "for an intrusion on such personalty, reasonable suspicion is required and, even if reasonable suspicion exists, the detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the intrusion." Id. at 244.