HERNANDEZ, ISRAEL GARCIA v. the State of Texas

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. 0176-25

ISRAEL GARCIA HERNANDEZ, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
WILLACY COUNTY

PARKER, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which YEARY, J., joined.

DISSENTING OPINION

Although the court of appeals erred to consider events occurring after Officer

Garcia activated his emergency lights, I would conclude that the information

possessed by him before that time was sufficient to confer reasonable suspicion to

stop. An officer found Appellant in an area in close proximity to the 911 caller’s

residence, in a vehicle that generally matched the caller’s description, late at night on
HERNANDEZ — 2

a work day in a sparsely populated county. The area had “a lot” of incidences of

human smuggling at the time of the stop, and the 911 caller’s description of the scene

could have reasonably indicated an imminent trespass. An experienced patrol sergeant

could find that all these circumstances combined suggested criminality. Consequently,

I would hold that the evidence was sufficient to show the “lawful” detention element

of the offense of evading detention.

I. Relevant Facts

Because the only contested issue in this case is whether Officer Garcia had

reasonable suspicion to effectuate the stop, the only facts relevant to this inquiry are

those up until Officer Garcia activated his emergency lights.

At 10:16 PM, on Tuesday March 17, 2020, Officer Garcia received a call from

dispatch. A 911 caller reported a suspicious four-door Chevrolet Silverado driving at

a slow rate in a rural area of Willacy County.1 At the time of the call, Officer Garcia,

a patrol sergeant of 12 years, was in Sebastian, Texas, about 10 to 12 miles from the 911

caller’s residence. It took Officer Garcia about 30 minutes to reach the 911 caller’s

residence, and he did not see another vehicle for “maybe miles” before he arrived on

1
State’s Exhibit 1 shows an aerial photograph of the area, and there are no more than four
residences near where Officer Garcia first saw Appellant.
HERNANDEZ — 3

scene. At 10:46 PM, Officer Garcia saw a four-door pickup truck,2 though not a

Chevrolet Silverado, near the caller’s residence on a dirt road off the highway in front

of the caller’s house. The proximity of the dirt road to the caller’s mailbox is

evidenced by a sign directly in front of that road being visible from the caller’s

mailbox.3 The rear side of the caller’s home was visible from the dirt road where

Officer Garcia activated his emergency lights. Officer Garcia also testified that, “at the

time, we had a lot of incidences of human smuggling. In that area, human smugglers

would go out there and pick up illegal aliens and transport them up North.” Officer

Garcia activated his emergency lights one minute after turning onto the dirt road.

II. Applicable Law

A. Standard of Review

“In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support a

conviction, a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict and determine whether, based on that evidence and reasonable

inferences therefrom, a rational fact finder could have found the essential elements of

2
Appellant’s pickup truck can be seen briefly in Defense’s Exhibit 1. It is a four-door,
extended cab pickup truck with clamshell rear doors.
3
State’s Exhibit 7 shows a photograph taken from the front of the 911 caller’s home, which
is across the street from the caller’s mailbox. The sign in front of the dirt road can be clearly seen
from this location.
HERNANDEZ — 4

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”4 When “considering a claim of evidentiary

insufficiency, a reviewing court does not sit as the thirteenth juror and may not

substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder by reevaluating the weight and

credibility of the evidence.”5 Since Appellant was convicted of evading detention,

“reasonable suspicion”—required for a lawful detention—was effectively an element

of the crime. “[W]hen a lawful detention is an element of the crime, a failure of the

State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the detention was lawful must result in

an acquittal of the defendant.”6

B. Reasonable Suspicion

An investigative detention must be justified by reasonable suspicion.7 In order

to have a reasonable suspicion, an officer “must have specific, articulable facts that,

combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him reasonably to

conclude that the person detained is, had been, or soon will be engaged in criminal

activity.”8 The articulable facts must show “that some activity out of the ordinary is

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979); Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159, 166
4

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
5
Edwards v. State, 666 S.W.3d 571, 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).
6
Day v. State, 614 S.W.3d 121, 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020).
7
Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906, 914 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
8
Id.
HERNANDEZ — 5

occurring or has occurred, some suggestion to connect the detainee to the unusual

activity, and some indication that the unusual activity is related to crime.”9 This is an

objective standard in which we must disregard the actual subjective intent of the

officer and, instead, look to whether there was an objectively justifiable basis for the

detention.10 To satisfy this standard, “the police officer must have some minimal level

of objective justification for making the stop.”11 When determining whether an officer

had reasonable suspicion, we must look to the totality of the circumstances. “[T]hose

circumstances may all seem innocent enough in isolation, but if they combine to

reasonably suggest the imminence of criminal conduct, an investigative detention is

justified.”12 When an officer or a witness has not witnessed a suspect actually do

anything illegal, “[w]e recognize that there may be instances when a person’s conduct

viewed in a vacuum, appears purely innocent, yet when viewed in light of the totality

of the circumstances, those actions give rise to reasonable suspicion.”13

Unlike probable cause, “it is not a sine qua non of reasonable suspicion that a

9
Meeks v. State, 653 S.W.2d 6, 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
10
Id.
11
Foster v. State, 326 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
12
Meeks, 653 S.W.2d at 12.
13
Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33, 38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
HERNANDEZ — 6

detaining officer be able to pinpoint a particular penal infraction.”14 Absolute certainty

from the officer is not required.15“It is enough to satisfy the lesser standard of

reasonable suspicion that the information is sufficiently detailed and reliable— i.e, it

supports more than an inarticulate hunch or intuition—to suggest that something of an

apparently criminal nature is brewing.”16 Due weight must also be given to the specific

reasonable inferences that an officer is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his

experience.17

III. Analysis

At the time of the incident, Officer Garcia had been a patrol sergeant for 12

years with the Willacy County Sheriff’s Office, overseeing the patrol division. The

facts known to Officer Garcia at the time were as follows: (1) it was a Tuesday night

in a sparsely populated rural area; (2) a 911 call came in at 10:16 PM describing a

suspicious four-door Chevrolet Silverado; (3) in his 30 minute drive on the way to

caller’s residence, Officer Garcia did not see any other vehicles for maybe miles; (4)

Officer Garcia saw one vehicle on a dirt road at 10:46 PM, which was a four-door

14
Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 916.
15
Bobo v. State, 843 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
16
Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 917.
17
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).
HERNANDEZ — 7

pickup; and (5) this vehicle was close in proximity to the caller’s residence.

The two issues that cut against a finding of reasonable suspicion are the 30

minutes it took for Officer Garcia to receive the call and arrive on scene and the fact

that Appellant’s pickup truck was not a Chevrolet Silverado as specifically described

by the caller. Reasonable suspicion is not a high bar, but only requires more than “an

inarticulate hunch or intuition” to suggest “something of an apparently criminal nature

is brewing.”18

A. 30-Minute Delay

30 minutes is a long time for a suspicious vehicle to leave an area. However, a

lone four-door pickup truck, very close to where the 911 call originated from,

objectively suggests that Appellant’s pickup truck was the same truck that the caller

spoke of. Officer Garcia also explained that he did not see any other vehicles on the

road for “maybe miles.” It would be a reasonable inference that because Officer

Garcia did not see any other vehicles driving away from the scene, that this would

increase the likelihood that Appellant’s truck was the suspicious vehicle the 911 caller

spoke of. The suspicion is amplified by the fact that it was 10:46 PM at the time

Officer Garcia found Appellant, and it was in a sparsely populated rural area of

18
Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 917.
HERNANDEZ — 8

Willacy County, a small county,19 on a Tuesday night. Vehicles out late at night on a

weekend might not be suspicious, but one lone vehicle out late on a work night could

contribute to finding of reasonable suspicion. Lastly, Appellant was on a dirt road, off

of the county road, which indicates that he was not simply passing through the area.

B. Specific Description of the Suspicious Vehicle

Appellant and the majority opinion focus on the specific description of the

suspicious four-door “Chevrolet Silverado.” When looking at the facts in the light

most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences therefrom,20 it is reasonable

to think that a 911 caller looking out on a road from her house in such a rural area at

10:16 PM would identify the vehicle as a Chevrolet Silverado solely by its shape, and

may be mistaken about the make and model. It was late at night in an extremely dark

rural area.21 Likewise it is reasonable for Officer Garcia to not look for the exact make

and model of the vehicle at this time of night but instead look for a shape that

resembles a four-door pickup truck. Officer Garcia simply sought to make an

19
In 2019, Willacy County had a population of 21,358. PEPANNRES: Annual Estimates of
the Resident Population, American Community Survey 10-year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau
( 2 0 1 9 ) , h t t p s : / / w w w . c e n s u s . g o v / s e a r c h - r e s u l t s . h t m l ? s e a r c h T yp e = w e b & c s s p
=SERP&q=Willacy%20County,%20Texas (last visited 11/17/2025).
20
Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318-19; Whatley, 445 S.W.3d at 166.
21
State’s Exhibit 9, Officer Garcia’s bodycam footage, shows that it was extremely dark
outside. The 911 caller was not in a position to know for sure what the make and model of the pickup
truck was.
HERNANDEZ — 9

investigative detention. “A brief investigative detention constitutes a significantly

lesser intrusion upon the privacy and integrity of the person than a full-blown

custodial arrest.”22 This is why an investigative detention merely requires reasonable

suspicion, more than an inarticulate hunch,23 rather than probable cause. Officer

Garcia did pull over a four-door pickup truck, though not the exact make and model

that was reported. Even though Officer Garcia did not find exactly what the caller

suggested he would find, he did not take a shot in the dark nor was he acting on a mere

hunch. He went exactly where the caller told him a suspicious truck drove slowly by

her house and found a truck very close by after driving miles, not seeing any other

vehicles on the road.24

C. Officer Garcia’s Personal Knowledge

22
Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 916.
23
Id.
24
While I agree with Judge McClure that this is an unusual case, he misstates several of the
facts. Judge McClure says that the 911 caller was anonymous, that the 911 caller only saw the
suspicious vehicle driving slowly on the dirt road, and that Appellant drove a 2-door pickup truck.
The record reflects that the identity of the 911 caller was known to the police, the 911 caller told
dispatch that she saw the suspicious vehicle driving slowly on the paved highway directly in front
of her house, and that Appellant’s vehicle was a 4-door pickup truck.

Also, Judge McClure suggests that Officer Garcia or the 911 caller must see criminal activity
before conferring reasonable suspicion. However, reasonable suspicion is present if the police had
specific, articulable facts that cause an officer to reasonably conclude that the detainee “is, had been,
or soon will be engaged in criminal activity.” Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 914.
HERNANDEZ — 10

The majority is understandably skeptical of Officer Garcia’s reliance on his

personal knowledge of human trafficking in the area. However, a reasonable suspicion

inquiry must look to the totality of the circumstances. One of those circumstances,

which was important to the United States Supreme Court in Terry, is the experience

of the officer.25 Here, Officer Garcia had held a position of authority with the Willacy

County Sheriff’s Office for 12 years, and he explained “at the time, we had a lot of

incidences of human smuggling. In that area, human smugglers would go out there and

pick up illegal aliens and transport them up North.” This is not an instance where any

officer could pull anyone over because they happened to be in an area known to have

some human trafficking activity. There was a 911 call, one vehicle in the area very

close to the caller’s residence, late at night, and a high-ranking experienced officer

who knew of an issue peculiar to this area at this time. It was peculiar to this area that

human smugglers would pick illegal aliens up and then transport them North.

Objectively, this situation could have suggested a “pickup.” It would be reasonable

for Officer Garcia to suspect that a smuggler was picking illegal aliens up at a rural

home to transport them North.

D. Objective Basis for the Stop

25
See Terry, 392 U.S. at 23 (discussing that an officer with as much experience as the officer
who effectuated the stop, would have done a poor job if he did not stop Terry).
HERNANDEZ — 11

Another explanation could be a possible trespass. Though this was never

brought up, this is an objective inquiry.26 The 911 caller explained on the call that the

suspicious pickup truck was driving slowly, late at night, which is behavior that a

reasonable officer could reasonably suspect to be the “casing” of the caller’s home.

This would make Appellant’s appearance on the dirt road more suspicious to Officer

Garcia. The dirt road was connected to the 911 caller’s and her neighbors’ backyards

by an empty field. Because this is an objective inquiry, we must not be swayed by

Officer Garcia’s subjective intent.27 If the dirt road was private property, this could

have been a trespass in progress. It also could have been suggestive of an imminent

trespass because all the driver would have had to do is exit the truck and go across the

field into the residents’ backyards. In isolation, Appellant’s behavior was not criminal,

but when viewed with the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer could have

reasonably suspected that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit

a crime.28

26
While the Court takes issue with the fact that Officer Garcia never testified that he
considered this theory, I reiterate that the reasonable suspicion analysis is meant to determine
“whether there was an objectively justifiable basis for the detention.” Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at
914 (emphasis added). Officer Garcia’s subjective intent is irrelevant; a stop is valid if supported by
an objective basis—such as a trespass.
27
See Meeks, 653 S.W.2d at 12.
28
See Derichsweiler, 348 S.W.3d at 916.
HERNANDEZ — 12

IV. Conclusion

Under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Garcia had reasonable suspicion

that criminal activity may be afoot.29 Officer Garcia was an experienced officer who

received a call late at night. He did not see any other vehicles on the road for miles

until he saw Appellant on a dirt road very close to the caller’s home. Appellant’s

vehicle matched the general description of a four-door pickup truck in an area that had

“a lot of” incidences of human smuggling in that area “at that time.” The totality of

the circumstances also could have objectively indicated an imminent trespass. Officer

Garcia stopped Appellant after receiving a 911 call, at a time of night, on a day of the

week, where less people would be driving around, in an area with very few residences.

The jury could rationally find that the detention was lawful based on reasonable

suspicion.

Because Officer Garcia was acting on more than a hunch when he effectuated

Appellant’s detention, and because a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable

doubt that Officer Garcia had reasonable suspicion to detain Appellant, I must

respectfully dissent.

Filed: December 19, 2025
Publish

29
See id.