Erick Hernandez v. State
07-14-00388-CR
| Tex. | Mar 16, 2015Background
- After a traffic stop of a 1997 pickup, officer searched Hernandez and the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine; Hernandez pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 years, but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Officer testified he initially observed no taillights on the pickup at night, followed it for several turns, observed the taillights come on (and the in-car camera record began showing the lights on), then stopped the vehicle for the taillight violation.
- Hernandez and a third-party witness testified the pickup’s taillights were on the whole time; the in-car video showed taillights on when recording began and recorded Hernandez naming the vehicle owner when asked.
- Officer also noted altered registration and perceived evasive wallet behavior, asked Hernandez out of the vehicle, obtained consent to search his pocket, and found methamphetamine.
- At the suppression hearing the trial court stated it would “take the officer’s observations at face value” absent evidence showing the officer’s account was impossible, placed the burden on Hernandez to disprove the officer’s observation, and denied the motion to suppress.
- Hernandez argues the court applied the wrong burden/standard: where a warrantless stop is established the State must prove the stop was reasonable under the totality of circumstances; the court instead required Hernandez to disprove the officer’s version of events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hernandez) | Held by Trial Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court used the proper standard in resolving the motion to suppress | Stop was lawful because officer observed a traffic violation (taillights off) and had reasonable suspicion; officer testimony should be accepted | Trial court erred by taking officer’s testimony at face value and shifting burden to Hernandez; State must prove reasonableness under totality of circumstances once warrantless stop is established | Trial court denied suppression, explicitly stating it would accept the officer’s observations at face value absent evidence the officer’s account was impossible |
| Whether the lack of a warrant shifts burden to the State to justify the stop | If warrantless, State must show the stop was reasonable | Warrantless stop was obvious from testimony; thus burden should have shifted to State but trial court ignored that shift | Trial court treated the lack of warrant as established but still required defendant to disprove officer’s observations |
| Credibility resolution and role of video/inconsistent testimony | Officer credible; video captured only limited period and does not refute officer’s account | Video and witnesses contradict officer’s claim that taillights were off; delay in stopping and location of stop undermine officer credibility | Trial court acknowledged the issue created by video but still credited officer over defense witnesses |
| Whether denial of suppression was harmless error | State would argue any error harmless given other incriminating evidence (altered registration, consent, etc.) | Hernandez argues improper standard could have altered outcome; error is constitutional and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial court did not rule on harmlessness; appellate review available to determine whether error was reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (State must prove reasonableness of search/seizure under totality of circumstances)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (lawful temporary detention requires reasonable suspicion)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1997) (Fourth Amendment balancing in vehicle stops)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court is sole arbiter of witness credibility at suppression hearing)
- State v. Gray, 158 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial judge may accept or reject all or part of testimony based on demeanor)
- Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (initial burden to establish arrest was warrantless; then burden shifts to State)
- State v. Dixon, 206 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (delay between observed violation and stop can affect officer credibility)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (subjective officer motive irrelevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)