Hereford v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 445
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant was arrested on outstanding Class C traffic warrants after entering a motel known for drug activity.
- While in the back of a patrol car, officers noticed appellant handling what they believed to be cocaine in his mouth.
- Officers forced appellant to open his mouth; crack cocaine was recovered from his mouth, hand, and buttocks after taser use and medical intervention.
- Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver: cocaine.
- A suppression motion argued no probable cause and excessive force; the trial court denied, citing warrants as justification.
- The Seventh Court of Appeals reversed, holding the force excessive and the suppression error harmful; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to resolve the force reasonableness and deference issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals properly deferred to the trial court’s implicit findings. | Hereford argues the appellate court properly deferred to supported trial findings. | State contends the appellate court failed to give deference to trial findings on taser use. | Yes; court defers to reasonable implicit findings and affirms Court of Appeals. |
| Whether the repeated taser use at the hospital was excessive and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | Hereford maintains force at hospital was excessive to obtain evidence. | State asserts taser use was necessary to prevent swallowing and protect health. | Excessive and unreasonable; suppression warranted. |
| Whether the use of a taser to prevent a potential overdose is inherently excessive as a matter of law. | Hereford contends taser use to prevent overdose is inherently excessive. | State argues it is a permissible, case-specific test under Winston factors. | Not per se; case-by-case analysis; in this case, excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (deference standard for historical facts in suppression review)
- Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (U.S. 1985) (balancing factors for intrusion vs. governmental interests)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness in use of force framework)
- State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings without explicit findings of fact)
- Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (probable cause and seizure-related principles)