has been obtained in a manner that would undermine the policies of deterrence and integrity of the courts. We are admonished by the Supreme Court in Terry that we, as the judiciary, are responsible to “guard against police conduct which is over-bearing or harassing, or which trenches upon personal security without the objective evidentiary justification which the Constitution requires.” We sustain Appellant’s two points. Conclusion We hold that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motions to suppress his statements and the marijuana. Therefore, we reverse Appellant’s conviction for the offense of possession of marijuana as well as the conviction for failure to identify and remand those causes to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 65 . See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,
holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial holding whether passenger was lawfully detained as witness to traffic violation when officer asked his name so that his false identification violated failuretoidentify statute not necessary to decide since other articulable facts justified continued detention holding that appellant was not lawfully detained for investigation of public intoxication when he gave false identification therefore trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his false identification statements holding a trial court erred in determining that a motion to suppress was waived by a speedy trial demand holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution