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

Police observed Damien Scott biking at night in a high-crime area, riding in the street without a light and weaving.
Officers stopped Scott for traffic/Class C offenses, shone a light on him, and asked for ID; they then asked if he had anything illegal.
Scott responded, "a crack pipe." Officers located a crack pipe and then observed a gun in his waistband; he was then arrested and briefly fled before being recaptured.
Scott pleaded guilty to evading arrest and felon-in-possession after the trial court denied his motion to suppress; he later appealed.
On appeal Scott argued his "crack pipe" statement resulted from custodial interrogation and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress it.
The State argued the encounter was an investigative detention (not custody) when the statement was made, so Article 38.22 recording/suppression rules did not apply and counsel was not ineffective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Scott's volunteered statement a product of custodial interrogation?	Scott: Officers' stop, use of light, and immediate questioning converted the encounter into custodial interrogation.	State: The encounter was an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion; custody began only after Scott admitted and officers discovered contraband and handcuffed him.	Court: Not custodial at time of statement; custody began after the statement and discovery of contraband.
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress the statement?	Scott: Counsel should have sought suppression of the unrecorded statement under custodial-interrogation principles.	State: Because the statement was admissible (not custodial), a suppression motion would have failed; counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to litigate a meritless motion.	Court: Counsel was not ineffective; no deficient performance or prejudice shown.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: performance and prejudice)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (distinguishes investigatory stops from custodial arrests for Miranda purposes)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody determined by objective circumstances, not officer's unexpressed subjective intent)
Sheppard v. State, 271 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. Crim. App.) (totality-of-circumstances test to distinguish investigatory detention from arrest)
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App.) (applying Strickland in Texas ineffective-assistance claims)
Bridge v. State, 726 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reviewing counsel performance under totality of representation)
Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App.) (counsel not ineffective for failing to object to admissible testimony)
Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellant must show a suppression motion would have succeeded to establish prejudice)