GOONAN v. State
334 S.W.3d 357
Tex. App.2011Background
- Goonan was stopped for speeding by a Keller police Corporal.
- During the stop, an opened wine bottle on the back floorboard was observed and Goonan lacked proof of insurance.
- Corporal Berry asked for license and conducted a vehicle search after obtaining consent.
- In the center console, Berry found a pill bottle with a prescription label for someone else and old fill information.
- Goonan testified she only noticed the bottle after allegedly revealing it while searching for insurance papers.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Goonan pled to a deferred adjudication program for possession of a dangerous drug.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opening the pill bottle was justified under plain-view doctrine | Goonan argues the bottle was innocuous and not in plain view | Berry contends the incriminating nature was apparent and the bottle was in plain view after consent | Denied suppression; plain-view justified the seizure |
| Whether the vehicle search was valid based on consent | Consent to search the vehicle invalidates opening the console | Consent was given; search based on consent was lawful | Search of the console was valid under consent |
| Whether the officer could rely on plain-view to justify seizing a container with a non-Goonan label | Container’s incriminating nature not plainly apparent | Incriminating nature readily apparent due to label and context | Plain-view doctrine properly applied; seizure justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983) (plain-view doctrine requires lawful vantage, immediate apparent incriminating nature, and right to access)
- Walter v. State, 28 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plain-view seizure framework in Texas)
- Keehn v. State, 279 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (plain-view immediacy and incriminating nature requirements)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (probable cause sufficient for plain view)
- Miller v. State, 686 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985) (probable cause standard for incriminating items)
- Joseph v. State, 807 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (mentally-connected inference allowed in plain-view)
- Martinez v. State, 323 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (analysis of plain-view and statutory context)
- Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (principles for reviewing suppression rulings)