Alford, Cecil Edward
358 S.W.3d 647
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Officer Ramirez encountered Alford after an open beer near a school and conducted routine questions about drugs as part of detention.
- Alford fled, was detained, and was arrested for evading arrest or detention; MDMA was later discovered in the back seat during transport.
- During booking, officers found a thumb drive; Ramirez asked Alford about ownership of the drive as part of inventory of personal property.
- Alford provided ownership, and the drive was placed with his personal property; Miranda warnings had not yet been given.
- Alford moved to suppress the booking-question remarks as custodial interrogation under arts. 38.22 and 38.23; the trial court admitted them.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding routine booking questioning could fall within a booking-question exception to Miranda; the Texas Court granted discretionary review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for booking-question exception | Alford argues should-have-known test controls admissibility | State argues objective Booking-question standard with de novo review | De novo review on objective reasonableness; mixed with factual deferential review |
| Whether the flash drive question was reasonably related to a legitimate administrative concern | Alford contends questioning was custodial interrogation to elicit incriminating info | State contends it was routine booking information tied to property/inventory | Question reasonably related to administrative concerns; admissible under booking-question exception |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Innis? (Rhode Island v. Innis), 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (defines interrogation to include words or actions likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Muniz v. United States, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (establishes routine booking question exception for administrative concerns)
- Cross v. State, 144 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noted booking exception exists, with limited elaboration)
- Gaston v. United States, 357 F.3d 77 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (routine booking questions may be admissible when tied to administrative purposes)
- Reyes v. United States, 225 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2000) (supports objective assessment of administrative concern in booking context)
- Jones v. State, 795 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (recognizes activity attendant to arrest/custody as not necessarily interrogation)
- McGinty v. State, 723 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (breathalyzer-related conduct not result of custodial interrogation)
- Ramirez v. State, Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 610 (2007) (unpublished; discussed booking questions but not precedential)