Lamar Deruinte Harris v. State
03-16-00330-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Officers surveilled Room 227 of a Killeen motel after a confidential informant said two men were trafficking narcotics from the room; surveillance repeatedly observed a white Chevrolet Camaro with a black top at the room.
- The Camaro was a rental not driven by the registered renter; police linked appellant Lamar Harris to the Camaro and to supplying drugs to the motel occupant.
- While officers prepared to execute a search warrant for the motel room, about ten officers boxed in the Camaro, pointed weapons, and ordered Harris out; Harris initially attempted to drive away but complied when stopped.
- An officer smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from the vehicle; Harris said, “Yes, and a whole lot more.” He was detained, handcuffed, and Deputy Scott performed a pat-down, felt a lump in Harris’s pocket, asked if it was contraband, and Harris responded “Yes.” The officer recovered a bag with 55.71 grams of cocaine.
- The trial court suppressed the officers’ custodial questioning (Miranda issue) but ruled the removal from the car was an arrest supported by probable cause and therefore allowed the cocaine as the product of a search incident to arrest. The jury convicted Harris; on appeal he challenged the suppression ruling and admission of an incriminating response opened during opening statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from Camaro was an investigatory detention or an arrest | Harris: the encounter was custodial at removal and officers lacked probable cause, so statements and subsequent search should be suppressed | State: officers lawfully detained/arrested Harris based on informant, surveillance, and odor of fresh marijuana; arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful | Removal was an arrest; based on totality (informant, surveillance, rental car, odor) officers had probable cause to arrest |
| Whether pat-down exceeded scope and required suppression of cocaine | Harris: pat-down went beyond officer-safety frisk and violated Fourth Amendment | State: search was incident to a lawful custodial arrest and valid without a warrant | Pat-down was a permissible search incident to the lawful arrest; cocaine admissible |
| Whether trial court erred by admitting previously suppressed custodial utterance after defense opening | Harris: admission of Agent Moseley’s question and Harris’s response was improper; pretrial suppression should control | State: defense opening statement “opened the door,” creating a false impression; limited testimony was allowable to rebut | Even if admission was erroneous, error was non-constitutional and harmless given strong independent evidence (cocaine, surveillance, odor) |
| Harmlessness of any evidentiary error | Harris: admission affected substantial rights | State: error, if any, was minimal and did not influence verdict | Court found no substantial or injurious effect on jury verdict; error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful arrest permits full search of person)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search incident to arrest justified to remove weapons and preserve evidence)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (custody standard for Miranda; objective reasonable-person test)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause is a practical, context-based standard)
- Wade v. State, 422 S.W.3d 661 (distinguishing consensual encounters, investigative detentions, and arrests)
- Arguellez v. State, 409 S.W.3d 657 (abuse-of-discretion standard for suppression rulings)