Hamal, Angela Dodd
390 S.W.3d 302
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Trooper Riggs stopped Hamal for speeding (79 mph in a 65 mph zone) and Hamal answered that she had never been in trouble.
- dispatcher reported Hamal had nine arrests, including four drug-related arrests, with a recent arrest about seven months prior.
- Trooper explained he would issue a citation and subsequently used the information to decide whether to detain for a canine search.
- Hamal was nervous at the scene; she later claimed she misunderstood whether the question referred to past arrests.
- A drug dog alerted to Hamal’s car, yielding a cannister with methamphetamine and a glass pipe.
- The trial court denied suppression without findings; Hamal requested and the appellate court addressed Article 38.23 jury instruction and suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for a dog search | Hamal | Hamal | No; suppression affirmed? (court held no factual dispute; concluded reasonable suspicion existed) |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying an Article 38.23 jury instruction | Hamal argued there was a disputed factual issue about reasonableness of the stop. | State argued no factual dispute; standard for reasonable suspicion controls. | Court held no jury instruction required |
| Whether the absence of factual dispute forecloses 38.23 instruction | Hamal claimed disputed issue about understanding the question created a fact issue. | State asserted no material dispute existed. | Court rejected; but ultimately rejected instruction on the basis of facts; affirmed suppression ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (disputed information before stop; speed as contested fact)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (test for evidence to be excluded under 38.23)
- St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (fact-finding for reasonable suspicion considerations)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (reasonable suspicion; prior conduct factors)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (supporting factors for reasonable suspicion)
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (prior record as a factor in suspicion)
- Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (disputed information before stop; speed as contested fact)