Damian Scott v. State, 01-15-00054-CR

Background

On Dec. 1, 2013 HPD Officers Brewster and Rothberg stopped Damian Scott, who was riding a bicycle at night, citing traffic violations; officers used marked patrol car lights and a spotlight and told him to stop.
Officers asked Scott to identify himself and, according to Brewster, asked whether he had a crack pipe; Brewster testified Scott replied he had a crack pipe in his front jacket pocket.
Brewster said that reply gave probable cause to search; officers recovered a crack pipe and, while handcuffing Scott, discovered a pistol; Scott then fled.
Scott testified he refused consent to search and that officers searched him anyway; the record contains no Miranda warnings or recording of any custodial statement.
At trial the court denied Scott’s pretrial motion to suppress detention, arrest, and fruits of the search; Scott pleaded guilty at bench trial and received concurrent prison terms; he appealed arguing ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress the incriminating statement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Scott)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (trial court / posture)
Whether the bicycle stop and officer's conduct constituted a custodial detention requiring Miranda warnings before asking about contraband	The stop involved a show of authority (lights, spotlight, blocking) so a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; asking whether he had a crack pipe began a custodial interrogation	Officers treated it as an investigative stop and asked routine ID/questions; no Miranda required for noncustodial encounters	Trial court denied suppression of the detention/arrest/search (motion denied); appellant preserved this as appellate issue
Whether Scott’s alleged oral admission (“I have a crack pipe”) was admissible under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 §3	The statement was the product of custodial interrogation and, because no Miranda warnings or recording were given, the statement is inadmissible under art. 38.22 §3	The State relies on the officers’ testimony that Scott volunteered the information and that art. 14.3(a)(6) allows arrest based on such statement	Trial court admitted the statement (denied suppression); appellant argues it should have been suppressed
Whether art. 14.3(a)(6) authorized a warrantless arrest based on Scott’s oral statement absent Miranda compliance	Scott: even if the statement would supply probable cause under art. 14.3(a)(6), art. 38.22 §3 bars admission of custodial oral statements not given after warnings/recording, so arrest based on that statement was improper	State: arrest was lawful because the statement (as testified) provided probable cause to arrest for possession	Trial court treated arrest/search as lawful; appellant now contends the statutory interplay required suppression
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the oral statement and its fruits	Scott: failure to move to suppress was objectively unreasonable (no conceivable strategy) and prejudiced him because the statement led to seizure of contraband and gun; but for counsel’s failure suppression would have been granted or error preserved	State: (implicit) counsel’s choices were reasonable; record lacks demonstration of deficient performance or prejudice	Posture on appeal: appellant argues Strickland prejudice; trial court record preserved claim for appellate review

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings before admissible statements)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (factors showing an investigative detention when officer blocks egress, uses spotlight, authoritative questioning)
Kerwick v. State, 393 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings; historical facts deferred to trial court, legal reasonableness reviewed de novo)
Ortiz v. State, 382 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (custody analysis not limited to enumerated categories; Miranda protections apply when custodial interrogation occurs)
Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App.) (framework for reviewing search/seizure reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (distinguishing casual encounters from investigatory stops)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (reasonableness balancing in traffic stop context)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (reasonableness tested by totality of circumstances)
State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (probable cause requirement for investigative detentions)