490 S.W.3d 629
Tex. App.2016Background
- Secret Service and local task force investigating gas-pump "skimmer" ring; skimmers found at Valero stations in Dallas and two Houston locations.
- Confidential informant alerted investigators that Arkadi Minassian would travel from Dallas to Houston under an alias; surveillance confirmed his arrival and travel directly from the airport to the two implicated gas stations.
- At both stations Minassian (a passenger) and the driver stopped briefly but did not attempt to pump gas; officers arrested both and searched the vehicle.
- Seized items included two laptops (one powered on in the passenger area), GPS units, universal gas-pump keys, tape, thumb drives, phones, and skimmers; one laptop review at the scene revealed ~10,000 credit-card numbers and names; a later federal warrant search revealed additional data.
- Minassian moved to suppress the arrest and searches; the trial court denied the motion. He pleaded guilty and received 30 years. He later moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance; the court denied the motion and Minassian appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / lawfulness of warrantless arrest | Arrest lacked probable cause; surveillance stops were innocent (visiting gas stations) and no exigency to arrest without a warrant | Tip corroborated by surveillance, location of skimmers, use of alias and fake ID, brief non-pumping visits to both implicated stations — supported probable cause | Court: Probable cause existed; arrest lawful (surveillance corroboration + suspicious place under circumstances) |
| Whether locations were "suspicious places" under Tex. Code crim. proc. §14.03(a)(1) | Visits to gas stations are innocuous and as consistent with innocent conduct as criminal conduct | Prior knowledge of skimmers at those specific stations + behavior (direct travel, no pumping) made the stops suspicious in context | Court: Place and circumstances were suspicious; arrest under §14.03(a)(1) was lawful |
| Standing to challenge warrantless search of laptops | Minassian claims laptops were personal and under his control, so he can challenge their search (and Riley requires fact-specific exigency for phone/computer searches) | No evidence of ownership or possession presented at suppression hearing; mere proximity insufficient to show expectation of privacy | Court: Minassian failed to prove a legitimate expectation of privacy in the laptops; therefore no standing to challenge their search |
| Ineffective assistance re: suppression objections and plea voluntariness | Counsel failed to object to federal affidavit detailing laptop data and misadvised him about likely punishment (plea involuntary) | Counsel raised suppression objections; record (admonishments, signed plea papers) and counsel's affidavit rebut Minassian; no proof counsel's strategy was deficient or prejudicial | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying new-trial motion; ineffective-assistance claim rejected and plea found voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 481 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (probable cause is prerequisite to warrantless arrest)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (probable cause standard and informant corroboration)
- Angulo v. State, 727 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (anonymous tip plus police corroboration can supply probable cause)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (proximity to property searched does not alone establish standing)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (digital device searches require particularized, fact-specific justification for exigent-exception invocations)
- Granville v. State, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (factors for assessing standing to challenge searches)