Daniel Uballe v. State, 439 S.W.3d 380

Background

Officer stopped Uballe for seat-belt violation, observed furtive movements, and learned his license was suspended; Uballe was nervous, had an ankle monitor, and carried large cash.
Officer sought consent to search the truck; Uballe refused. Officer arrested Uballe for driving without a valid license and the vehicle was to be impounded because no licensed driver was available.
During a pre-tow inventory of the vehicle, officers opened a pink-and-white make-up case and discovered what appeared to be crack cocaine, a digital scale, and credit cards in another name.
Texas Tech Police had a written inventory policy directing a complete written inventory of impounded vehicles and permitting opening of containers; officers testified they inventory "everything."
Trial court denied suppression, refused an article 38.23 jury instruction (error found but harmless), denied immediate inquiry/hearing about alleged juror misconduct during punishment deliberations, and denied a hearing on the motion for new trial; conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Uballe)	Held
Legality of vehicle search under federal constitution / suppression	Inventory search was valid because arrest and impoundment authorized; officers followed written inventory routine	Inventory was a pretextual ruse to search for contraband; search violated Fourth Amendment	Search upheld; impoundment and inventory permitted and supported by written policy and officer testimony
State constitutional protection for searches (greater than Fed.)	Texas Constitution does not require greater protection here; federal analysis controls	Autran requires greater protection under Texas Constitution	Rejected; court declines to adopt Autran expansion and follows federal standards
Article 38.23 jury instruction (evidence unlawfully obtained)	No disputed material fact entitling defendant to instruction	Officer's intent/good-faith was disputed by circumstantial indicia (furtive gestures, cash, immediate focus on make-up case) — required instruction	Trial court erred in denying instruction, but error was harmless because undisputed facts (lawful arrest, traffic hazard, written policy) supported admissibility
Juror misconduct / hearing on new trial	Court reasonably managed deliberations; no evidence of external influence; Rule 606(b) limits juror testimony	Juror left jury room agitated, alleged bullying — requested immediate inquiry and later hearing on new-trial motion	Denial of immediate inquiry and hearing not an abuse of discretion; event found harmless (verdict unanimous on punishment and jurors polled); Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about deliberations

Key Cases Cited

Fienen v. State, 390 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard of review for historical facts and legal questions)
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (defer to trial court on historical facts; review legal questions de novo)
Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (impoundment permits inventory search when necessary to protect vehicle)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (opening closed containers during inventory must follow standardized procedures to avoid pretextual searches)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (reasonable inventory procedures applied in good faith satisfy Fourth Amendment)
Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (requirements to trigger article 38.23 instruction)
Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (good-faith inquiry tends to be subjective/personal)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (when a hearing on a motion for new trial is required)
Robinson v. State, 377 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishing factual disputes that make good-faith a jury question)
St. Clair v. State, 338 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (inventory search standards and alternatives to impoundment)