Harris, Howard Martin
PD-1241-15
| Tex. | Dec 11, 2015Background
- Victim escaped alleged assault and went to a nearby police station reporting that Harris beat her, used a knife, and threatened that police would find her in a ditch.
- Deputies at the station observed injuries, believed they had probable cause for assault causing bodily injury, and dispatched officers to Harris’s apartment.
- Deputies Cooley and Keele encountered Harris at his door, handcuffed him for investigative purposes, obtained his consent to enter and to search, but did not find the knife.
- After calling the on‑duty ADA (who confirmed probable cause), officers arrested Harris without first obtaining a warrant and transported him to the station for a videotaped interview.
- Harris moved to suppress the videotaped statement as the fruit of an illegal warrantless arrest; the trial court denied the motion and the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed. Harris sought discretionary review, arguing the COA misapplied the burden of proof and failed to evaluate the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless arrest in Harris’s home was illegal and whether the statement should be suppressed | Arrest was in Harris’s home, undisputed; once Harris showed a warrantless arrest occurred, burden shifted to State to prove exception (impracticability / exigency). COA wrongly shifted burden and failed to assess totality of circumstances. | Officers had probable cause for assault causing bodily injury and reasonably believed there was a danger of further bodily injury to the victim, which justified a warrantless arrest under art. 14.03(a)(2) and exigent‑circumstances principles. | COA affirmed: arrest lawful because officers had probable cause and genuine concern for future harm to victim justified warrantless arrest. |
| Whether the COA applied the correct burden and review test for suppression | Harris: Once he established a warrantless seizure, State bore burden to prove exception and impracticability; appellate court should apply totality of circumstances de novo when facts are undisputed. | State: Trial court’s findings (concerns about future harm, weapon use, suspect following victim) are supported by testimony; appellate review defers to factual findings tied to credibility. | COA: applied deferential review to trial court findings and concluded State met its burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden shifts to State after defendant shows a warrantless search or seizure occurred)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (officer acting as own magistrate must show immediate and serious consequences to justify postponing a warrant)
- Randolph v. State, 152 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (risk of danger to victim may constitute exigent circumstances supporting warrantless entry/arrest)
- Amores v. State, 816 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for assessing reasonableness of searches and seizures)
- Caramouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (the totality of circumstances—the whole picture—must be considered)
- Pennywell v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (appellate courts must address issues necessary to final disposition when raised by the defendant)