Lonnie Lynn Johnson v. State
12-15-00186-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- On January 12, 2014, Texas Game Wardens responded to a stuck vehicle at Gus Engeling Wildlife Management Area and contacted Lonnie Johnson and his wife.
- A license check revealed Johnson was a convicted felon; he lacked a permit to be on the property.
- Warden Sadowski (testifying) said Johnson consented to a vehicle search; a duffle in the trunk contained a firearm, body armor, and tactical police equipment.
- Johnson told Sadowski he was an undercover peace officer with the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office; the warden could not verify that and handcuffed Johnson, who was later arrested.
- Johnson moved to suppress the trunk evidence and post-search oral statements; the trial court denied suppression, Johnson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain (30 years concurrent on each count), and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed suppression denial as to the physical evidence and an unsolicited statement, but reversed the conviction for impersonating a public servant because statements made in response to questioning after handcuffing were custodial and obtained without Miranda warnings, requiring remand for that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent to vehicle search | Johnson: he did not consent; warden's consent testimony not credible | State: warden asked and Johnson said "go ahead"; trial court credited warden | Court: credited warden's testimony; consent was valid; denial of suppression of physical evidence affirmed |
| Whether consent was vitiated by unlawful detention (reasonable suspicion) | Johnson: consent occurred after issuance of a warning and during an unsupported detention | State: warden had reasonable suspicion based on felony status, remote location, pattern of being in secluded areas, and behavior | Court: totality supported reasonable suspicion; detention lawful; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether pre-arrest oral statements required Miranda / article 38.22 recording | Johnson: statements after handcuffing were custodial interrogations made without warnings or recording and should be suppressed | State: statements occurred during investigative detention or were volunteered; handcuffing was for officer safety | Court: unsolicited statement made during handcuffing was admissible as volunteered; but answers to warden’s questions after handcuffing were custodial, elicited incriminating responses, and obtained without Miranda or recording — suppression should have been granted for those responses; conviction for impersonation reversed |
| Harmlessness of Miranda error given guilty plea | Johnson: error affected his decision to plead guilty | State: plea and other evidence stand | Court: error was constitutional and harmful to plea bargaining leverage; reversal and remand required for impersonation count |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches generally unreasonable)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (investigative detentions not necessarily custodial for Miranda)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation: words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (custody standard for Miranda under Texas law)
- Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)