Alford v. State
333 S.W.3d 358
Tex. App.2011Background
- Officers investigated a report of a person with a weapon and found Alford with an open beer near a school.
- Alford was detained after appearing nervous and attempting to back away when questioned about drugs and weapons.
- Alford ran; officers chased, apprehended, handcuffed, patted down for weapons, and transported him to jail.
- During transport, Alford lay on the back seat and claimed his side hurt; upon arrival, officers searched the backseat and found a pills-containing bag and a flash drive.
- Alford admitted the flash drive was his during intake; it was placed with his personal property; he was charged with possession of a controlled substance 4+ grams but <400 grams.
- A suppression hearing concluded that questions about the flash drive occurred as booking questions; trial court overruled the objections.
- Trial evidence included an earlier assertion by Officer Ramirez that the car had been checked and was clean; Alford was found guilty and later entered a five-year plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custodial interrogation occurred without rights advisements | Alford asserts questions were custodial interrogation eliciting incriminating statements. | State contends it was administrative booking questioning not requiring Miranda warnings. | Statements admitted; questioning was booking-related and not custodial interrogation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (booking questions exception to Miranda applies)
- Cross v. State, 144 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (questions attendant to arrest or booking do not constitute interrogation)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (historic fact findings are given deference in suppression rulings)
- Estrada v. State, 154 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (application-of-law-to-fact questions as to suppression)
- Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (credibility and demeanor factors in factual findings)