Miller, Christina Jean
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1596
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Deputies responded to a disturbance at Miller's apartment around 12:30 a.m., entered with Miller's consent to enter, and observed Miller appeared distraught and intoxicated with no visible injuries.
- The officers waited inside for a warrant check and did not leave after Miller repeatedly told them to leave; there was no probable cause to arrest at that time.
- During the stay, an officer observed a burnt marijuana cigarette and foil; Miller seized the foil, and officers subsequently arrested her.
- After arrest, officers found two baggies containing a white powdery substance in plain view near the foil.
- Miller moved to suppress the evidence as the result of an unlawful warrantless entry; the trial court denied the motion, Miller pled guilty, and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the officers’ continued presence after Miller revoked consent was unlawful and the emergency-doctrine justification was improper; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emergency doctrine supported the continued presence. | Miller | State | Emergency doctrine not supported; reversal |
| Whether officers could remain in Miller's residence without a warrant after she asked them to leave. | Miller | State | Consent revocation ended; no lawful basis to stay; suppression granted |
| Whether continuing presence after revocation amounted to criminal trespass rendering evidence inadmissible. | Miller | State | Issue dismissed as improvidently granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (consent of one resident does not authorize others' entry over objections)
- Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plain-view doctrine requirements)
- Valtierr[a] v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (consent scope and revocation in searches)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to trial court factual findings in suppression review)
- Tucker v. State, 369 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (video/indisputable evidence affects factual findings)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standards for reviewing historical facts in suppression)
- State v. Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (nonexclusive theories may support trial court rulings on suppression)