IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00152-CR

Mark Reed Cochrane,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 919,215

        This appeal concerns a conviction for possession of cocaine.  Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.  Appellant argues that the arresting officer had no basis on which to stop Appellant, and that the seizure of Appellant’s cocaine was outside the proper scope of the officer’s search of Appellant.  We will affirm.

      The stop of Appellant was proper.  The officer received information that Appellant and another man were stealing beer from a gas station.  When the officer asked Appellant to stop, Appellant disregarded the officer and got inside his car.  These facts gave the officer reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was being committed.  See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272, 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

      The seizure of Appellant’s cocaine was likewise proper.  After the officer performed a Terry search of Appellant’s person, Appellant told the officer that he had several hypodermic needles in his pocket.  Such needles can be used as a weapon.  See Thomas v. State, 884 S.W.2d 215, 217, 218 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, pet. ref’d); Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 49, 50 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).  The lone officer was detaining two possibly intoxicated men.  The officer thus reasonably seized Appellant’s needles.  See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147-48 (1972).  In the course of removing the needles from Appellant’s pocket, the officer found a straw that had cocaine on it, and properly seized it.  See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1050 (1983); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737-39 (1983) (plurality op.); Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

      Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issues, and affirm the judgment.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Reyna

Opinion delivered and filed August 25, 2004

Affirmed

Do not publish

[CR25]