Amy Dannette Jackson v. State
06-16-00079-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- On Sept. 29, 2011, Trooper Brandon Denison stopped a vehicle driven by Jason Davidson with Amy Jackson as a passenger after confirming Davidson’s license was suspended and then arrested him.
- During the stop and Davidson’s arrest, Davidson consented to a search of his vehicle; officers found narcotics and observed a Gatorade/Kool-Aid cap with tubing near where Jackson stood.
- Denison asked Jackson for consent to search her person; she consented and a female deputy recovered a meth pipe from Jackson’s crotch area. Laboratory testing showed .09 grams of methamphetamine.
- Jackson moved to suppress the pipe, arguing the search was unlawful because the stop was completed, the search lacked reasonable suspicion, and her consent was coerced.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Jackson pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine and received deferred adjudication.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether Jackson’s consent to the search was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment (and Texas Constitution) and affirmed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless search of Jackson’s person justified by valid consent? | Jackson: consent was involuntary/coerced; officer failed to inform her she could refuse; stop’s purpose was complete | State: Jackson voluntarily consented; no threats, promises, or coercion; paraphernalia observed and prior encounter supported officer’s suspicion | Court: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; search justified by consent |
| Did the seizure/stop remain lawful after Davidson’s arrest so as to permit further inquiry of passenger? | Jackson: stop was completed with Davidson’s arrest so detention of passenger became unlawful | State: passenger remained seized for duration of traffic stop; arrest of driver did not render passenger’s detention unlawful here | Court: No illegality shown in continued detention; passenger remained seized during stop per precedent |
| Was officer required to inform Jackson of right to refuse for consent to be voluntary? | Jackson: failure to inform denied meaningful choice | State: knowledge of right to refuse not required for voluntary consent | Court: Cited Schneckloth—no requirement to inform; voluntariness judged by totality of circumstances |
| Standing to challenge vehicle search versus personal search evidence | Jackson: challenges search of person and seeks suppression of evidence found on her person | State: passenger generally lacks standing to contest vehicle search; but here challenge is to search of Jackson’s person based on her consent | Court: Vehicle-search standing not dispositive; personal search upheld because consent was voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (knowledge of right to refuse not prerequisite to voluntary consent)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (passengers are seized for duration of traffic stop)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (occupants of stopped vehicles are seized)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (voluntariness of consent judged by totality of circumstances)
- Bishop v. State, 85 S.W.3d 819 (burden shifting in suppression: defendant shows no warrant; State must prove exception)
- State v. Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102 (State bears burden to justify warrantless search)
- Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to trial court on credibility)
- Flores v. State, 871 S.W.2d 714 (passenger generally lacks standing to contest vehicle search)