Arrests

Question 1

i. Amores v. State

Answer 1

defendant was observed by apartment manager loading a box into a trunk of a car. The manager knew the defendant was not a resident of complex and believed a burglary in progress. Manager called DPD. Officer responded within one minute, blocked the defendant from leaving, and ordered the defendant out of the car at gun point. Defendant moves to have gun and drug evidence suppressed because he lacked PC to affect the arrest.

1. An investigative detention requires only reasonable suspicion and lasts for a time by which the officer can determine if a crime has been committed.
2. An arrests requires probable cause (a higher standard) which the officer can demonstrate thru specific articulable facts.
3. Here the officer failed to perform any investigative function until after the arrest (which lacked PC).

Question 2

1. A warrant must contain:

Answer 2

a. The name of the accused but if not known, a reasonable description of him
b. State the person is accused of a crime against the state of Texas and name the offense.
c. Signed by a magistrate and his office named.

Question 3

“Four Corners Rule”

Answer 3

which requires all the relevant information pertaining to PC be contained within the affidavit because the court is not going to look outside the affidavit for support.

Question 4

4. The defendant has the initial burden of proof to show

Answer 4

that the arrest was an illegal arrest. The burden is then shifted to the state to show that it was not unreasonable.

Question 5

5. An exception to the four corner’s doctrine is Franks v. Delaware

Answer 5

states you can go behind the affidavit to show a lack of probable cause. This is used to show the officer intentionally put in false information or put in false information with a reckless disregard for the truth.

Question 6

1. Arrests – PC standard

Answer 6

a. With a warrant (Chapter 15 CCP)
b. Without a warrant (Chapter 14 CCP)
i. PD or person view if felony or offense against public peace
ii. Peace officer any offense in his presence or in his view (within his geographical jurisdiction)
iii. Occurred in presence or view of a magistrate and is a felony or breach of the peace
iv. Suspicious places and reasonably believe crime
v. PC to believe assault and want to prevent further assault
vi. PC person violated protective order
vii. PC person committed family violence
viii. PC person interfered with another’s ability to place emergency call
ix. Person makes a statement that would be admissible against him and establishes PC he committed a felony
c. For Texas, if arrest is not provided for in Chapter 14 then it is an illegal arrest, if done so without a warrant.

Question 7

Traffic Violation

Answer 7

Probable Cause/Reasonable Suspicion (Occurs in view of officer)

Question 8

Terry Stop

Answer 8

Reasonable Suspicion

Question 9

Community Care Taking

Answer 9

Distress

Question 10

Consensual Encounter

Answer 10

Consent only

Question 11

iv. Visor v. State

Answer 11

have a warrant to arrest unknown black female relating to drug house. The warrant provides no description of the woman. A B/F leaves location, PD follows her and arrest her. Take her back to apartment and find drugs. This was a combination search/arrest warrant (18.03).

Question 12

v. Romo v. State

Answer 12

suspect driving recklessly. Observed by a citizen (lake patrol) who calls in. PD can’t get there quick enough so citizen is directed to initiate stop. During the stop, citizen detects smell of alcohol.

1. CCP 14.01 directs a peace officer or any person to arrest for an offense that occurs in their view or presence and is a felony or a breach of the peace. 14.03(d) and (g) deal with peace officers ability to arrest outside of jurisdiction.
2. The citizen as a lake patrol was a peace officer as defined under CCP 2.15. He was outside his jurisdiction.

Question 13

vi. Willis v. State

Answer 13

– undercover officer makes multiple buys from defendant. Officer’s make a warrantless arrest. Defendant says court should grant motion to suppress because 14.04 controls. The UC didn’t make the arrest so the other officers didn’t view felony or it wasn’t committed in there presence so the only way he could be arrested without a warrant was if he was escaping. The PD didn’t offer any evidence that he was escaping so evidence should be thrown out. Prosecution says 14.01 controls and the offense did happen in the presence of the arresting officers even though they weren’t at the buy and didn’t see the buy.

1. The court holds the UC was essentially a part of the arresting team making him an arresting officer that personally observed the felony offense.
2. The nature of the item sought (drugs) and the fact that the suspect drove away makes the automobile exception applicable. The officers, thru radio contact, had PC that the defendant still had drugs on him. This allowed them to initiate a traffic stop; therefore, creating a situation where the defendant actually did commit a felony in their presence/view.

Question 14

3. Heien v. SC, 135 US 530 (2014)

Answer 14

Defendant stopped for a broken tail light. As a result, dope found. Turns out, broken tail light isn’t a violation in South Carolina. The officer made a mistake of law. The court holds the officer’s conduct was reasonable, even though it was a mistake of law so the defendant’s conviction stands.

Question 15

4. Article 38.23

Answer 15

evidence obtained by officer or other person in violation of the Const. or laws of the state of Texas, or of the U.S. Const. or laws of the federal government shall be excluded.

Question 16

vii. Johnson v. State

Answer 16

Intruder breaks into apartment murders boyfriend. Girlfriend escapes and goes to neighbors and calls police. Police get there and discover no forced entry, maintenance keys left in apartment. Defendant shows up. Admits that keys are his and he has some blood on him. PD decide enough to arrest. Defendant moves to suppress evidence. Court denies motion based on CCP 14.03 – the crime scene was a suspicious place and under such circumstances it can reasonably be believed the defendant is guilty of some felony.

1. Suspicious Place = there are split decisions about what it is. Cases cover the spectrum about what is and what isn’t, many times contradicting each other.
2. Another option could have been 14.03(a)(6) – makes a statement that is admissible against him and establishes PC he is guilty of a felony.

Question 17

viii. Honeycutt v. State

Answer 17

defendant is suspected of DWI. PD arrive and recognize the car and home of the defendant. PD also know defendant has a previous conviction for DWI. The PD knock, with no response, so they enter the home and find defendant was lying in bed with her shoes off. At the motion to dismiss, the state argues the arrest was legal because the defendant was on the verge of escaping (maybe a suspicious place as alternate theory).

1. Court sustains motion because there is no evidence on the record to support a finding the defendant was going to escape (i.e. she was lying in bed with shoes off, the officers knew she lived at house, she had been in the house for awhile, and she had previous DWI and didn’t run after that).
2. Dissipation of BAC is no longer viewed as an exigency so as to apply that exception to the warrant requirement.
3. As long as a crime has been committed officers can be in hot pursuit and enter defendant’s home if she entered as they were chasing after her.

Question 18

ix. Fry v. State

Answer 18

complainant was kidnapped and beat up. Suspects eventually let him go. While still with kidnappers, complainant over heard suspects would be leaving back to California that day. When released, complainant calls PD. PD are told location of suspects and go make an arrest under CCP 14.04. In a panel opinion the court identifies 4 elements for 14.04: 1. Credible witness, 2. Felony, 3. About to escape, and 4. No time for warrant. At the second hearing the court says evidence of escape is not necessary and there are not 4 elements. All that is needed is an officer to act upon satisfactory proof from representations of a CREDIBLE PERSON that a felony offender is about to escape so that there is not time to procure a warrant. Elements 3&4 are not independent of each other

Question 19

x. Rhodes v. State

Answer 19

Defendant switched prices tags on a video to pay a lower price. Defendant was arrested for substitution of a writing. Defendant was initially detained by a loss prevention officer for a store. This is permissible under CCP 18.16 which allows any person to prevent the consequences of theft by seizing any property which has been stolen and the suspected offender. (Reference CCP 18.16 and TX Civ. Rem. & Prac Code 124.001).

Question 20

Williams v. State

Answer 20

officer sees car illegally parked, stops, approaches car. Suspect was sitting in the car. When officer approached suspect got out of car. Officer saw paper sack in car, opened it and discovered 2 guns. The search was bad but the evidence was not suppressed. The Court holds that the evidence could be admitted under the theory of search incident to arrest. The suspect being under arrest for parking on the wrong side of the street.

1. An alternate theory for admitting could be under “suspicious place.” CCP 14.03 – Legislatures attempt to codify Terry.
2. Possibly for a Terry Detention/frisk (protective sweep). However, Terry wouldn’t work because the fact pattern is similar to Amores (possible burglary in progress at an apartment complex).

Question 21

Kothe v. State

Answer 21

suspect stopped on suspicion of DWI. Passes FST. Girlfriend admits to holding dope for suspect. Officer is informed by dispatch that suspect needs to be questioned with regards to a burglary. Officer discovers a bank bag with missing items. The suspect moves to have evidence thrown out because he was detained for longer than what the original stop was for. Another issue was whether the suspect had standing to object to evidence obtained from the girlfriend.

Question 22

St. George v. State

Answer 22

suspect a passenger in a vehicle. Suspect gave false name when asked during stop. Police issued citation to driver but continued to question driver. Police got true name and suspect had warrants. Was arrested and SIA, police found marijuana. Court suppresses evidence because the police had no particularized facts that would allow them to extend the duration of the stop to the passenger once the citation had been issued to driver.
1. Passengers are under no obligation to provide identity to officers when asked.

Question 23

xiv. Gonzalez v. State

Answer 23

officer observed suspect pull off the side of the road so he stopped to perform a “community caretaking” function and make sure suspect was ok. During contact, suspect appeared to be intoxicated and was arrested for DWI. Court upholds the arrest based on community caretaking. This has a 2 prongs, 1. Was officer motivated to initiate contact based on a concern for person’s well being and 2. Was the officer’s belief reasonable. These two prongs then take into account 4 factors. 1. Nature and level of distress, 2. Location, 3. Was person alone and without access to assistance other than officer, and 4. To what extent person, without assistance by officer was a danger to self or others.

Question 24

Holt v. State

Answer 24

suspect arrested for DWI by way of a DWI roadblock. Court overturns the conviction because DWI checkpoints are not allowed in Texas. The court holds checkpoints require a statewide procedure enacted by a legislative body to be valid.

Question 25

Lujan v. State

Answer 25

suspected arrested for Poss. CS. Arrest occurred at a checkpoint for DL and insurance. Court upheld the arrest. This type of checkpoint is not for generalized law enforcement purpose and is therefore ok. However, police do not need to turn a blind eye to any criminal violation they may encounter during the course of the encounter.

Question 26

Wade v. State

Answer 26

suspect was eating lunch in his car at boat ramp by lake. Game wardens approach and initiate contact. Warden’s don’t like suspect’s answers to the questions they ask and ask suspect to exit the vehicle. Suspect initially refuses. When suspect finally exits the vehicle, he is searched and drugs are found. Court holds the frisk was no good because the warden’s had no articulable reasonable suspicion that would demonstrate why the warden was fearful for his safety. This is a “fruit of the poisonous tree” case.